HiPC 2022 Double Blind Review Policy

Technical papers submitted to HiPC 2022 will undergo a double-blind review process. In this process, authors do not know who reviews their papers and reviewers do not see author names. The goal for double-blind review is to mitigate the potential for implicit or explicit bias.

If you are an author, you should write your paper so as not to disclose your identity or the identities of your co-authors. The following guidelines are best practices for “blinding” a submission in a way that should not weaken it or the presentation of its ideas. These practices are distilled from McKinley (2015) and Snodgrass (2007).

While Writing

• Do not use your name or your co-authors’ names, affiliations, funding sources, or acknowledgments in the heading or body of the document.
• Do not eliminate self-references to your published work that are relevant and essential to a proper review of your paper solely in an attempt to anonymize your submission. Instead, write self-references in the third person. Recall that the goal and spirit of double-blind review is to create uncertainty about authorship, which is sufficient to realize most of its benefits.
• To reference your unpublished work, use anonymous citations. For example, to cite your work, you can use: “The authors developed … [1]” where the reference [1] appears as, “[1] Anonymous (omitted due to double-blind review).” You will have a way to explain these references to the non-conflicted Technical Papers Chairs or their designee(s).

At Submission Time

• At submission time, you will be asked to declare conflicts of interest you may have with program committee members.

During the Reviewing Period

• You are not forbidden from disseminating your work via talks or technical reports (including self-publication on pages like arXiv). However, you should not try to directly or otherwise unduly influence program committee members who may be reviewing your paper.

References

• S. McKinley (2015). “More on Improving Reviewing Quality with Double-Blind Reviewing, External Review Committees, Author Response, and in Person Program Committee Meetings.” http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mckinley/notes/blind-revised-2015.html
• T. Snodgrass (2007). “Editorial: Single- versus double-blind reviewing.”http://history.acm.org/pictures/tods/tods.acm.org/editorial.pdf