Frequently-asked questions about double-blind reviewing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Over the past few years, TODS has adopted many innovative policies: a call for short papers and directed surveys, a limit of one review per year per reviewer, a guaranteed turn-around time of five months, full implementation of the ACM Rights and Responsibilities policy, and reviewing statistics published on its web site. Most of these innovations were at the time unique to TODS; some other journals are now following up. These policies were somewhat controversial when first considered. What if the reviewer pool dried up given this promised limit? What if reviewers weren't responsive, causing the Editorial Board to violate its five-month guarantee? Over time, the community responded and everything worked out. These past policies were enacted to increase fairness and quality. The double-blind policy furthers both of these objectives. The expectation is that over time the database community will become accustomed to the process and benefits of double-blind reviewing, as has occurred in other scientific communities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalSIGMOD Record
Volume36
Issue number1
StatePublished - Mar 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Turnaround time
Websites
Innovation
Statistics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Information Systems
  • Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design
  • Software

Cite this

Frequently-asked questions about double-blind reviewing. / Snodgrass, Richard Thomas.

In: SIGMOD Record, Vol. 36, No. 1, 03.2007.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a7f2bebdbb6d4202b3703a86324d5cca,
title = "Frequently-asked questions about double-blind reviewing",
abstract = "Over the past few years, TODS has adopted many innovative policies: a call for short papers and directed surveys, a limit of one review per year per reviewer, a guaranteed turn-around time of five months, full implementation of the ACM Rights and Responsibilities policy, and reviewing statistics published on its web site. Most of these innovations were at the time unique to TODS; some other journals are now following up. These policies were somewhat controversial when first considered. What if the reviewer pool dried up given this promised limit? What if reviewers weren't responsive, causing the Editorial Board to violate its five-month guarantee? Over time, the community responded and everything worked out. These past policies were enacted to increase fairness and quality. The double-blind policy furthers both of these objectives. The expectation is that over time the database community will become accustomed to the process and benefits of double-blind reviewing, as has occurred in other scientific communities.",
author = "Snodgrass, {Richard Thomas}",
year = "2007",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
journal = "SIGMOD Record",
issn = "0163-5808",
publisher = "Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Frequently-asked questions about double-blind reviewing

AU - Snodgrass, Richard Thomas

PY - 2007/3

Y1 - 2007/3

N2 - Over the past few years, TODS has adopted many innovative policies: a call for short papers and directed surveys, a limit of one review per year per reviewer, a guaranteed turn-around time of five months, full implementation of the ACM Rights and Responsibilities policy, and reviewing statistics published on its web site. Most of these innovations were at the time unique to TODS; some other journals are now following up. These policies were somewhat controversial when first considered. What if the reviewer pool dried up given this promised limit? What if reviewers weren't responsive, causing the Editorial Board to violate its five-month guarantee? Over time, the community responded and everything worked out. These past policies were enacted to increase fairness and quality. The double-blind policy furthers both of these objectives. The expectation is that over time the database community will become accustomed to the process and benefits of double-blind reviewing, as has occurred in other scientific communities.

AB - Over the past few years, TODS has adopted many innovative policies: a call for short papers and directed surveys, a limit of one review per year per reviewer, a guaranteed turn-around time of five months, full implementation of the ACM Rights and Responsibilities policy, and reviewing statistics published on its web site. Most of these innovations were at the time unique to TODS; some other journals are now following up. These policies were somewhat controversial when first considered. What if the reviewer pool dried up given this promised limit? What if reviewers weren't responsive, causing the Editorial Board to violate its five-month guarantee? Over time, the community responded and everything worked out. These past policies were enacted to increase fairness and quality. The double-blind policy furthers both of these objectives. The expectation is that over time the database community will become accustomed to the process and benefits of double-blind reviewing, as has occurred in other scientific communities.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33947617927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33947617927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33947617927

VL - 36

JO - SIGMOD Record

JF - SIGMOD Record

SN - 0163-5808

IS - 1

ER -