« Back to Summary
Describe the changes you had to make to your submission, or extra work you performed, for this year's POPL compared to what you would have done if POPL had used SBR (check all that apply):
#Response DateOther (or elaboration on the above)
1Nov 2, 2011 3:20 AMMain trick was to speak of myself as "the authors". Disturbing plural, but easy to implement, especially since I often use "the author" for self-references.
2Nov 1, 2011 4:38 PMOmitted the reference to the workshop paper of almost the same title.
3Nov 1, 2011 4:29 PMWe had to remove references to the existing (on-line) implementation of our system, and this certainly did not improve the quality of the paper.
4Nov 1, 2011 7:34 AMAnonymised notes about private communication.
5Oct 30, 2011 8:35 AMI omitted a link to a tool available online.
6Oct 24, 2011 3:11 AMWe left out our implementation reference from the paper, though we included it as supplemental material.
7Oct 24, 2011 3:04 AMIt was the first papers I was writing on either topic, so there was no difference between SBR or DBR writing.
8Oct 23, 2011 10:12 PMSee above
9Oct 23, 2011 12:30 PMomitted acknowledgements
10Oct 22, 2011 7:35 PMPOPL community is not sufficiently diversified, so any extra information related to experience would have given clues.
11Oct 22, 2011 4:26 PMNone.
12Oct 22, 2011 8:04 AMFor the parts I contributed to I didn't really do any of the above.
13Oct 22, 2011 5:22 AMRemoved reference to some extra material made available from our university server.
14Oct 22, 2011 5:06 AMSee above with regards to citing own techreport.
15Oct 22, 2011 12:49 AMreference in appendix with URL:
16Oct 21, 2011 9:05 PMWe could not explicitly refer to the extensive experiential work that drove our design. Since many of the strong opinions we got from reviewers *were* about our design, we were essentially unable to introduce relevant evidence until the response phase, by when it was too late.
17Oct 21, 2011 3:47 PMcan't easily point to a webpage which contains more examples, offers the tool for download etc
18Oct 21, 2011 3:37 PMFor my paper, the same text would work for both SBR and DBR (except, of course, for our names below the title).
19Oct 21, 2011 2:59 PMWe have to remove link to a technical report.
20Oct 21, 2011 2:16 PMWe had to say "the people working on (name redacted) have found..." when we were those people working on (name redacted).
21Oct 21, 2011 2:14 PMOne of our papers was based on a previous paper and that DBR made the description and evaluation of our previous result a little bit weird.
22Oct 21, 2011 6:33 AMIt was lighter changes than I expected. No a pain in this case, but it might have been different for another paper.
23Oct 20, 2011 3:27 AMRemove links to the compiler and the source code of the examples.
24Oct 18, 2011 10:48 AManonymized online technical reports
25Oct 18, 2011 4:50 AMWe could not be very explicit about experiments and efforts on changing tool support. New versions of the used tool could neither be clearly described as it would have revealed our identity.
26Oct 17, 2011 6:38 PMWe removed the fact that a design choice was motivated by substantial experience with a research artifact that another research group would not have.
27Oct 17, 2011 5:24 PMOmitted author names
28Oct 17, 2011 3:09 PMremoved the author's name
29Oct 17, 2011 12:50 PMCan't remember.
30Oct 17, 2011 11:23 AMWe omitted reference to a previous paper on a similar topic as this would have been to obvious. Similar for pointers to a website with implementations and technical reports.
31Oct 17, 2011 10:52 AMSeveral of the reviewers of our paper initially thought that the work was an incremental delta over a previous paper we published at [another venue]. It was tricky to discuss the [prior] paper as related work because that paper had not even been published at the time we submitted the POPL paper. So we limited our discussion of our own prior work but that wound up giving the reviewers the wrong impression (to our disadvantage).
32Oct 17, 2011 9:59 AMAny reference to the work on which we build is distinctively our own. It's absurd to try to hide this fact. It is relevant, and should not be sanitized.
33Oct 17, 2011 9:14 AMRemoved the link to web demonstration page. Made the comparison with our own previous work less clearer (as the clear comparison requires deep knowledge of our previous work that is not known to others)
34Oct 17, 2011 9:01 AMI omitted a funding acknowledgement, and acknowledgements of discussions with colleagues that I felt might have revealed my identity.
35Oct 17, 2011 8:33 AMWe have extensive experience in the area, but didn't find it easy to leverage that experience in the paper because it would de-annoymize the paper.
36Oct 17, 2011 8:21 AMNone, our submission [...] did not rely on our previous work.
37Oct 17, 2011 8:16 AMWe have a large amount of experience with (topic redacted) to which we could only allude w/o explaining what happened. -- We also couldn't properly cross-cite a concurrent submission by a disjoint group of authors on a point that explained why we made a certain point [...]. As it turned out, a reviewer brought up this point, and from the final changes to the reviews, the point may have clouded his/her judgement. [It was our fault for writing the reply to the review according to the DBR standards. Your message that this wasn't needed came too late.]
38Oct 17, 2011 8:15 AMThe rules were easy to follow, but they did substantially affect how I wrote the papers. It couldn't have helped.
39Oct 17, 2011 8:08 AMOmitted acknowledgements to people for suggestions made privately. I was worried that the reviewers were offended I did not acknowledge them.
40Oct 17, 2011 8:04 AMFor an SBR submission, we would have been able to properly explain contributions which are taking place as part of an ongoing community-wide process to establish industrial standards (remainder of comment redacted).
41Oct 17, 2011 7:59 AMWe omitted the name of the application we are working on, as we have only recently begun using the name at talks etc., and the link was very clear between the authors and the application. We felt that this was without detriment, as there was no prior published work.
42Oct 17, 2011 7:57 AMremoved acknowledgements
43Oct 17, 2011 7:56 AMI wanted to submit my appendix along with the paper, so that the reviewers could look at it before submitting their reviews. This required me to create a Google site and put the anonymized document there. Figuring out how to do that took a surprisingly long amount of time (a couple hours).
44Oct 17, 2011 7:50 AMI omitted citations to the reference manual for the language feature described in the paper.
45Oct 17, 2011 7:46 AMOur paper was about a system that was available online, and which we improved in some ways while writing [...]. We could not both mention the improvements and give a pointer to the system, as it would reveal who we are. We chose to give the pointer to the system and omitted the description of the improvements, weakening our paper.