Cracking Double-Blind Review: Authorship Attribution with Deep Learning

by   Leonard Bauersfeld, et al.

Double-blind peer review is considered a pillar of academic research because it is perceived to ensure a fair, unbiased, and fact-centered scientific discussion. Yet, experienced researchers can often correctly guess from which research group an anonymous submission originates, biasing the peer-review process. In this work, we present a transformer-based, neural-network architecture that only uses the text content and the author names in the bibliography to atttribute an anonymous manuscript to an author. To train and evaluate our method, we created the largest authorship-identification dataset to date. It leverages all research papers publicly available on arXiv amounting to over 2 million manuscripts. In arXiv-subsets with up to 2,000 different authors, our method achieves an unprecedented authorship attribution accuracy, where up to 95 are not only able to predict the author of an anonymous work but we also identify weaknesses of the double-blind review process by finding the key aspects that make a paper attributable. We believe that this work gives precious insights into how a submission can remain anonymous in order to support an unbiased double-blind review process.


page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4


Case for the double-blind peer review

Peer review is a process designed to produce a fair assessment of resear...

Effectiveness of Anonymization in Double-Blind Review

Double-blind review relies on the authors' ability and willingness to ef...

A Community's Perspective on the Status and Future of Peer Review in Software Engineering

Context: Pre-publication peer review of scientific articles is considere...

Unveiling the Sentinels: Assessing AI Performance in Cybersecurity Peer Review

Peer review is the method employed by the scientific community for evalu...

Some Ethical Issues in the Review Process of Machine Learning Conferences

Recent successes in the Machine Learning community have led to a steep i...

To ArXiv or not to ArXiv: A Study Quantifying Pros and Cons of Posting Preprints Online

Double-blind conferences have engaged in debates over whether to allow a...

Does My Rebuttal Matter? Insights from a Major NLP Conference

Peer review is a core element of the scientific process, particularly in...

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset