Andrew Fitzgibbon

Computer Vision Researcher

User Tools

Site Tools


no-more-double-blind-cvpr

CVPR authors abandon double-blind review

So it seems (and I have no way of checking) that some CVPR submissions are being trailed in the New York Times the day after the submission deadline.

The implication is that the authors and the community are in favour of abandoning double-blind review.

The problem is, though, that this is not our choice to make. By “our” here, I mean those of us who are famous authors at famous institutions. Bigshots if you will. Of course, there are arguments for and against double-blind, but we (the bigshots) are those whom it is designed to protect against, so if we unilaterally abandon it, we strengthen any case for its existence.

Note that this is not a question of what the CVPR conference chairs decided. This is a decision each individual makes when they post their unblinded paper on any indexed website.

Discussion

Lamberto Ballan, 2014/11/19 22:51

I think this is a very important discussion. But the problem arise since CVPR 2013 (at least). This text is from the submission guidelines: “Note that a Technical Report (departmental, arXiv.org, etc.) that is put up without any form of direct peer-review is NOT considered a publication […] is NOT considered a violation.”

It happened several times that authors put their paper on arxiv immediately after the submission and so I think that this direction has been “unofficially” accepted since a couple of years.

no-more-double-blind-cvpr.txt · Last modified: 2016/07/15 10:55 by awf