ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Impact of double-blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication rates
Full text PdfPdf (185 KB)
Source ACM SIGMOD Record archive
Volume 35 ,  Issue 2  (June 2006) table of contents
Pages: 29 - 32  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISSN:0163-5808
Authors
Samuel Madden  MIT CSAIL
David DeWitt  University of Wisconsin, Madison
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 12,   Downloads (12 Months): 46,   Citation Count: 7
Additional Information:

abstract   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1147376.1147381
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Starting with the 2001 SIGMOD conference, the SIGMOD Chair, in consultation with the SIGMOD Advisory Committee, imposed a double blind rule on all future SIGMOD conferences. While there are many reasons why double-blind reviewing might be a good idea, the one most frequently cited is that it is fairer to more junior researchers. It is not, however, without its problems, including anecdotal reports of papers being rejected because their authors failed to cite their own papers as related work in order to not violate the anonymity rules and a complication of the job of the program chair who must interpret and enforce the double-blind rules. One very qualified individual turned down an offer to be PC chair of an upcoming SIGMOD conference because he did not want to have to deal with the headaches of double-blind reviewing.



Collaborative Colleagues:
Samuel Madden: colleagues
David DeWitt: colleagues