Skip to content

MohammadiIman/double-blind

 
 

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Latest commit

 

History

44 Commits
 
 
 
 
 
 

Repository files navigation

Computer Science Conferences: Double-blind Status

This document provides a curated overview of the anonymity policies of major computer science conferences (as defined by CSRankings). It is maintained by Emery Berger.

The following terms are used:

  • Single-blind: Author identities and affiliations are visible to reviewers at all stages.
  • At least partially double-blind: Author identities and affiliations are concealed during the initial review process.
  • Fully double-blind (blind to accept): Reviewer anonymity is maintained until the Program Committee meeting concludes, with identities disclosed only for accepted (or conditionally accepted) papers. For conferences that do not explicitly state this in their CFP, the policy has been confirmed directly with the program chairs.

Below is a table summarizing the status for each conference:

Conference At least partially double-blind? Fully double-blind (blind to accept)? CFP or Similar Link
Fully double-blind conferences
ASPLOS ✔️ ✔️ Submission Info
CAV ✔️ ✔️ Call for Papers
CCS ✔️ ✔️ CFP
FSE ✔️ ✔️ Track Info
ICML ✔️ ✔️ Call for Papers
ICSE ✔️ ✔️ Submission Guidelines
ISCA ✔️ ✔️ Submission Guidelines
NSDI ✔️ ✔️ CFP
Oakland (IEEE S&P) ✔️ ✔️ CFP
OOPSLA ✔️ ✔️ Call for Papers
OSDI ✔️ ✔️ CFP
PLDI ✔️ ✔️ CFP and FAQs, PLDI Track)
SIGMOD ✔️ ✔️ Call for Papers
SOSP ✔️ ✔️ CFP
USENIX ATC ✔️ ✔️ CFP
Pending verification of full double-blind status
MICRO ✔️ ? Submission Guidelines
Partially double-blind conferences
ICFP ✔️ CFP
NeurIPS Blind for reviewers (not for area chairs/PC) Call for Papers
POPL ✔️ CFP
Single-blind conferences
VLDB Submission Guidelines

Resources on Double-Blind Reviewing

  • Effectiveness of Anonymization in Double-Blind Reviewing – Le Goues, Brun, Appel, Berger, Khurshid, Smaragdakis; Communications of the ACM, May 2018. Read on ACM | ArXiv
  • Improving Publication Quality by Reducing Bias with Double-Blind Reviewing and Author ResponseACM SIGPLAN Notices, 43(8):5–9, McKinley, 2008. PDF
  • More on Improving Reviewing Quality with Double-Blind Reviewing, External Review Committees, Author Response, and In-Person PC Meetings – McKinley, 2015. More details

About

Tracks status of double-blind reviewing in major computer science conferences.

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

No releases published

Packages

 
 
 

Contributors