Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
greatresearch.org | ||
| | | | |
togelius.blogspot.com
|
|
| | | | | Computer science differs from most other academic fields in that conference papers are counted as real, citable publications. While journals... | |
| | | | |
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) | |
| | | | |
jacobbuckman.com
|
|
| | | | | In light of the recent discussions on the *ACL reviewing process on Twitter, I want to share some thoughts. Do We Need Peer Review? Specifically, do we need double-blind peer review of the sort that conferences provide? I'm in full agreement with Ryan that it is an essential service for... | |
| | | | |
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. | ||
