Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
blog.geomblog.org | ||
| | | | |
blog.mrtz.org
|
|
| | | | | This is a guest post by Eric Price. | |
| | | | |
www.theexclusive.org
|
|
| | | | | There has been a lively debate recently about the review process for research paper submissions, and how to deal with the fact that double-blind review becomes more difficult when many papers are prepublished on sites like arxiv.org before submission. | |
| | | | |
windowsontheory.org
|
|
| | | | | Michael Mitzenmacher pointsto two posts ofSuresh Venkatasubramanian on the issue of so called "double blind reviews" (i.e., anonymous submissions) in theory conferences. In short, both Michael and Suresh think they are a good idea. I agree with much of their motivations, but, based on my experience in both non-blinded (e.g., STOC/FOCS) and blinded (e.g., CRYPTO) | |
| | | | |
codeexplainer.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | I have decided to move my content to a different platform - details to follow very soon. | ||
