| 1 | Nov 2, 2011 3:20 AM | I think my case was simple since I did not had to mention any personal background. |
| 2 | Oct 25, 2011 3:42 PM | I feel that this is perfectly natural, and all of the corner cases will appear over time and will make their way into the FAQ. |
| 3 | Oct 24, 2011 2:43 AM | I believe that reviewers could benefit from having access to blinded supplemental material before submitting their initial reviews. Blinding supplemental material could be difficult, though. |
| 4 | Oct 23, 2011 10:12 PM | My coauthor was responsible for this, so I don't know |
| 5 | Oct 22, 2011 2:33 PM | I wasn't building on prior work, so for this specific submission blinding was effortless. |
| 6 | Oct 22, 2011 8:04 AM | Can't say for sure. A student prepared the submission. I unfortunately entered rather late in the process. |
| 7 | Oct 22, 2011 5:06 AM | For example, I was building on work that was published as a tech report. Citing this techreport would reveal my identity or look like I was "stealing" unpublished work. But putting it in the supplementary seemed the reasonable option. |
| 8 | Oct 22, 2011 1:39 AM | Papers can be circulated
privately / on the web, which makes the DBR less meaningful,
and the requirements on whom you can circulate to were a bit confusing. |
| 9 | Oct 22, 2011 12:49 AM | In case one references an online appendix, the URL may render the blinding bogus… |
| 10 | Oct 21, 2011 9:05 PM | I felt they were actually quite good under the circumstances (of having DB in the first place). |
| 11 | Oct 18, 2011 3:22 PM | The reviewers and I did not agree on the correct anonymization approach, which indicates to me that there is confusion about the right way to do it (and probably there is never going to be a universally accepted way to do it). |
| 12 | Oct 17, 2011 10:52 AM | I wanted to send out announcements on the types mailing list soliciting post-docs for the project on which I submitted a paper. I was worried that would illegally compromise my anonymity and make the PC chair irritated. (After all, the PC chair is a pretty annoying guy. :-) |
| 13 | Oct 17, 2011 10:14 AM | Handling of supplementary material (e.g. technical report with proofs) was initially underspecified. |
| 14 | Oct 17, 2011 9:59 AM | The rules are preposterous; authorship matters. |
| 15 | Oct 17, 2011 9:03 AM | It's hard to write about extending a system you built & published on, without making it pretty clear that you're the author. |
| 16 | Oct 17, 2011 8:58 AM | I think it would have been helpful to be clear from the outset that the author response did not have to be anonymized |
| 17 | Oct 17, 2011 8:04 AM | They were inconsistent: it wasn't possible to follow the instructions without damage to the exposition of the paper. |