DeepAI AI Chat
Log In Sign Up

De-anonymization of authors through arXiv submissions during double-blind review

by   Homanga Bharadhwaj, et al.

In this paper, we investigate the effects of releasing arXiv preprints of papers that are undergoing a double-blind review process. In particular, we ask the following research question: What is the relation between de-anonymization of authors through arXiv preprints and acceptance of a research paper at a (nominally) double-blind venue? Under two conditions: papers that are released on arXiv before the review phase and papers that are not, we examine the correlation between the reputation of their authors with the review scores and acceptance decisions. By analyzing a dataset of ICLR 2020 and ICLR 2019 submissions (n=5050), we find statistically significant evidence of positive correlation between percentage acceptance and papers with high reputation released on arXiv. In order to understand this observed association better, we perform additional analyses based on self-specified confidence scores of reviewers and observe that less confident reviewers are more likely to assign high review scores to papers with well known authors and low review scores to papers with less known authors, where reputation is quantified in terms of number of Google Scholar citations. We emphasize upfront that our results are purely correlational and we neither can nor intend to make any causal claims. A blog post accompanying the paper and our scraping code will be linked in the project website


page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4


Does double-blind peer-review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference

Peer review is widely regarded as essential for advancing scientific res...

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...

Analyzing the Machine Learning Conference Review Process

Mainstream machine learning conferences have seen a dramatic increase in...

Single versus Double Blind Reviewing at WSDM 2017

In this paper we study the implications for conference program committee...

A Graph Analytics Framework for Ranking Authors, Papers and Venues

A lot of scientific works are published in different areas of science, t...

An Open Review of OpenReview: A Critical Analysis of the Machine Learning Conference Review Process

Mainstream machine learning conferences have seen a dramatic increase in...

What makes a successful rebuttal in computer science conferences? : A perspective on social interaction

With an exponential increase in submissions to top-tier Computer Science...