« Back to Summary
How has your opinion about DBR changed as a result of your experience with POPL'12?
#Response DateFeel free to expand on your answer
1Nov 2, 2011 3:09 AMWas it supposed to change?
2Nov 1, 2011 2:53 PMAs a result of all the discussions about DBR (on the SC list, for example), I saw some arguments in favor that I had not before. However, I also experienced more clearly some of the hassles, especially to do with hesitation about advertising the work to colleagues.
3Nov 1, 2011 1:43 PMThere used to be scepticism about the authors being able to hide their identity in the submissions. However, a good set of guidelines has been developed, which improved my confidence in the process.
4Nov 1, 2011 8:43 AMThe improvement was based on experience as a PC member, rather than as an author.
5Nov 1, 2011 7:45 AMProblem: the text/intro must be different for DBR compare to SBR and the final version
6Oct 28, 2011 6:08 AMThere is no option for "My opinion didn't change at all", which is my answer.
7Oct 26, 2011 1:24 PMMichael did a huge amount of work for DBR works (really). I am a bit worried next year whether the next chair is so careful as Michael.
8Oct 25, 2011 3:41 PMI already thought double-blind reviewing should be the standard for all major conferences, so I can't really say that my feeling increased...
9Oct 25, 2011 9:04 AMI didn't have any opinion before.
10Oct 24, 2011 3:10 AMI had not submitted to conferences using DBR in the past. I had some concerns about referring to important additional material, but the process addressed all of my concerns.
11Oct 24, 2011 2:48 AMYou ran it well
12Oct 22, 2011 7:31 PMI suspect that is largely because this POPL PC was very professional.
13Oct 22, 2011 4:25 PMFrom the author's perspective, my opinion didn't change. Because it is easy to do DBR badly, DBR is a high-risk strategy for authors. I remain in favor.
14Oct 22, 2011 11:34 AMNot sure
15Oct 22, 2011 5:01 AMSorry, it is my first paper that I ever submitted so I cannot give a good answer about this.
16Oct 21, 2011 9:04 PMI did not think very highly of it in the first place.
17Oct 21, 2011 6:02 PMObviously by there remarks, reviewers at least for one paper guessed the authors
18Oct 21, 2011 4:55 PMNone of the above. I think double blind is silly -- as most of the time one can tell whose paper it is -- also one can also google some key terms and find the website of author or something
19Oct 21, 2011 4:07 PMIt is better than SBR, but it does not completely eliminate the bias toward "inner crowd" papers
20Oct 21, 2011 4:05 PMneutral
21Oct 21, 2011 3:56 PMI already had a high opinion of POPL, and DBR did not change that.
22Oct 21, 2011 3:35 PMI have had the same paper rejected at least twice (not all POPL) where a big factor has been an adamant reviewer who seems to have decided to trash my paper no matter what. This reviewer consistently makes identifiable misreadings of the paper, and I am quite positive it is the same reviewer each time. Conversely, it was obvious this reviewer knew who we were. Of course, having an adversarial reviewer is fair game, but my experience for POPL'12 was that the blindness was just ineffective.
23Oct 21, 2011 2:48 PMMy opinion did not change (not an option above)
24Oct 21, 2011 2:30 PMNo change in my opinion.
25Oct 21, 2011 2:22 PMI had the impression that the reviewers did not read/take into account our responses. The reviews are almost the same before and after the rebuttal.
26Oct 21, 2011 2:15 PMMy opinion didn't really change much. The POPL 12 submission process seemed fine overall.
27Oct 21, 2011 6:32 AMI think exectly the same as before (what isn't this answer proposed by default? Are you ttrying to bias the poll?)
28Oct 20, 2011 6:45 AMI've always been for, and didn't experience anything that would change this view
29Oct 19, 2011 4:00 PMNo change
30Oct 19, 2011 6:25 AMIt would have been impossible to make our paper look like it came from anyone else
31Oct 18, 2011 3:21 PMMore reviewers focusing on the anonymization process.
32Oct 18, 2011 8:16 AMI think that if the ERC were expanded, then it might help.
33Oct 17, 2011 9:45 PMI do not think DBR has improved the reviews very much (there were _way_ too many major factual/technical errors, and our rebuttals were simply ignored, or, worse, one reviewer got offended and responded with even less civilized comments!), though it still seems better than nothing.
34Oct 17, 2011 5:20 PMActually, I think exactly the same as I have for a long time.
35Oct 17, 2011 4:02 PMNo difference.
36Oct 17, 2011 4:01 PMMy opinion hasn't really changed.
37Oct 17, 2011 3:56 PMActually, my opinion has not changed.
38Oct 17, 2011 3:30 PMI don't know.
39Oct 17, 2011 1:51 PMIt seems double-blind reviewing at POPL prevented people from contacting experts. Since the PC and ER were lacking in concurrency/process calculi experts, no knowledgable reviewers could be found in time.
40Oct 17, 2011 12:55 PMI assumed until now that it is much more work to anonymize the paper.
41Oct 17, 2011 12:49 PMI am still the same opinion
42Oct 17, 2011 11:35 AMI have always suspected that DBR is a good idea and the reviews this year confirmed this.
43Oct 17, 2011 11:33 AMIt didn't change my opinion
44Oct 17, 2011 9:57 AMThis, and other such officiousness, is ruining POPL.
45Oct 17, 2011 9:43 AMThere's no "neutral" answer?
46Oct 17, 2011 9:41 AMThe reviews should be private to reviewers and public to the authors until the end of the rebuttal. Reviewers are unwilling (ego?) to admit their mistakes in front of other reviewers. When they realize they made a mistake, many reviewers find some other irrelevant objection, rather than sit down to carefully read the paper, and fix their review.
47Oct 17, 2011 9:29 AMMy opinion has not changed, but there is no option for that. I thought it worked well.
48Oct 17, 2011 9:11 AMCoz I don't feel that the reviewers are actually carefully reading, or considering them
49Oct 17, 2011 9:04 AM(I already had a high opinion of DBR.)
50Oct 17, 2011 8:58 AMMy opinion has improved little, not from direct experience, but from reading the FAQ.
51Oct 17, 2011 8:54 AMEr, why is there no "my opinion has not changed" option?
52Oct 17, 2011 8:22 AMIt was a very good idea to allow submission of non-anonymous supplementary material, revealed only in a second phase of reviewing,
53Oct 17, 2011 8:19 AMI did not think much about it before, but I like the idea.
54Oct 17, 2011 8:16 AMDespite the above answer, my opinion of it has not changed.
55Oct 17, 2011 8:12 AMI really wanted a bullet "no change."
56Oct 17, 2011 8:11 AMI think that's an improvement, but it should be more strictly enforced. I noticed that most submitting authors would still announce their papers online, so this made it pretty easy to figure out who the submitters were. In my opinion authors should be advised not to put their submissions publicly online (I believe this should actually be penalized). This would help making the process more credible. At the moment, if you are well-known, then just put your paper online and reviewers will find it and know for sure who the authors are.
57Oct 17, 2011 8:08 AMI'm not sure it improves things that much. It seems reviews can change to an arbitrary degree once the authors' identity is revealed, undermining most of the potential benefit.
58Oct 17, 2011 8:00 AMI think the committee guessed who were some of the authors.
59Oct 17, 2011 7:48 AMFirst, my submissions to POPL were less well-written than they would otherwise be, solely for the purpose of double-blind reviewing. Second, the fact that two of the reviews of my papers changed score with no explanation after unblinding reduces my confidence in the particular implementation of DBR for POPL'12.
60Oct 17, 2011 7:42 AMI was unconvinced with DBR for new work, and I see it's even worse when continuing existing work.
61Oct 17, 2011 7:39 AMno change