The Role of Author Identities in Peer Review
Nihar B. Shah

TL;DR
This study analyzes the impact of anonymizing author identities in peer review, finding that it reduces bias and is generally favored, but requires effective conflict of interest detection methods.
Contribution
It provides empirical evidence on reviewer perceptions and the effects of a middle-ground anonymization approach in a major conference.
Findings
Most reviewers could not identify authors' identities.
A small percentage of reviews changed scores after revealing identities.
Participants largely favor anonymization with conflict of interest checks.
Abstract
There is widespread debate on whether to anonymize author identities in peer review. The key argument for anonymization is to mitigate bias, whereas arguments against anonymization posit various uses of author identities in the review process. The Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS) 2023 conference adopted a middle ground by initially anonymizing the author identities from reviewers, revealing them after the reviewer had submitted their initial reviews, and allowing the reviewer to change their review subsequently. We present an analysis of the reviews pertaining to the identification and use of author identities. Our key findings are: (I) A majority of reviewers self-report not knowing and being unable to guess the authors' identities for the papers they were reviewing. (II) After the initial submission of reviews, 7.1% of reviews changed their overall merit score and…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsExpert finding and Q&A systems · Topic Modeling · Software Engineering Research
