,
9 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Time for the n-th academic twitter thread/rant on holy war arxiv vs. double blind. My take: I think the current double-blind "rule" is a joke. Read until the end before you @ me: 1/n
Context:
Context:
Both arxiv and double blind have pros and cons. Now, some people strictly follow the double blind rule because they think it's the "right thing to do". Some people don't. But I know people in the first group that get upset by this practice (especially for competitive papers).
I'm not here to pick a winner -- that's a complicated issue, and it can't be solved on twitter. But, and this is my main point: we should NOT leave to decide what's OK or not to specific authors. We need *clearer guidelines* from above.
Example: is it OK to publish a paper on arxiv+twitter two days later having submitted it to a peer-reviewed double blind conference? Some people do it, but there is *huge* chunk of this community that thinks it's not ok.
@IEEESSP @NDSSSymposium @acm_ccs @USENIXSecurity steering folks: when will we have clear guidelines? We ignored this issue for many years. *Officially* picking one the two (even if not perfect) is MUCH better than not picking anything and leaving it to personal interpretation.
I know that recent CFPs mention that "you can submit papers that are already on arxiv", but, again, huge chunks of the community still think that it's wrong (because it is a clear violation of double blind). *We need clearer guidelines*.
Disclaimer: my intent is clearly NOT to point fingers to poor @gannimo (or others) :) several people do it, some groups systematically. Actually, it's great to see that a simple tweet+arxiv is getting high-quality feedback, huge pro of arxiv.
But I'm not sure I know how to handle this. E.g., @christianrossow and @thorstenholz can't clearly be reviewers for this specific paper anymore -- but they clearly would have been *good* reviewers for it. And what about the rest of the academic community on twitter?
These should be taken as genuine points/questions, I don't have second aims. It's just that, as an author and reviewer, I found myself in difficulty to deal with these situations. This is important stuff, and IMO it should be made clearer. /END
