Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
no-more-double-blind-cvpr [2014/11/19 16:21] – awf | no-more-double-blind-cvpr [2021/01/07 09:37] (current) – awf | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Note that this is not a question of what the CVPR conference chairs decided. | Note that this is not a question of what the CVPR conference chairs decided. | ||
- | ~~DISCUSSIONS~~ | + | Rekindling this on twitter... |
+ | |||
+ | Researchers with privilege: here's one thing you can do this year to balance the playing field for emerging researchers. | ||
+ | DON'T VIOLATE DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW. | ||
+ | This is something YOU can do, not something that is decided by conference committees, or multilateral discussions. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If you submit to any venue where your paper is anonymized, don't post it on arXiv during the review period. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If you're giving a talk at any venue during the review period, you can mention the new paper, but you must ask everyone present to recuse themselves from reviewing it. If you already submitted the paper to a non-blind venue, or gave a talk in a public forum, sorry, you can't submit it to blind venues. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If you're giving a talk at any venue during the review period, and talk about the new paper, you must ask everyone present to recuse themselves from reviewing it. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Q: "But the conference website clearly says it's OK" | ||
+ | A: Doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Q: "But what about science? | ||
+ | A: Oh I can hardly count the ways this is wrong. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Q. "But I only gave the talk at a tiny conference in Cork." | ||
+ | A. First, I'm from Cork, so be careful what you say. Second, great, lucky you, lucky Cork. Was the talk recorded? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Q. "OK, I am privileged, I'm a full professor at MIT. But I can't commit to this, my students are not so privileged." | ||
+ | A. Well, let's explore that. Your students will suffer because they had to wait 3 months to publish? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Q. "But I need a NeurIPS acceptance to get my PhD" | ||
+ | A. Ah, well then. You should definitely not violate double blind review before submitting. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Q. "But I need a job, and this work is the best I've done -- I need to talk about it." | ||
+ | A. Absolutely you do - and you should. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Q. "But, but, but.. mumble mumble scooped." | ||
+ | A. Yes, that's likely to happen if you're doing the blindingly obvious next thing in a crowded field. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Q. "But Andrew, didn't you hear? There' | ||
+ | A. Oh, of course, you're right. | ||
+ | But no, seriously: people of privilege, you are exactly the people who are not permitted to say double blind is optional. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Q. "But I'm not privileged, I'm a lowly PhD student." | ||
+ | A. Where? MIT? You may be privileged. | ||
+ | Q. "No, it's not MIT. It's a terrible place. | ||
+ | A. Are your parents rich? You may be privileged. | ||
+ | Q. No, we were so poor I had to watch TV in the dark. | ||
+ | A. Do you have a platform? | ||
+ | Etc... | ||
+ | |||
+ |