3 ms·

I once reviewed a math paper for a double-blind journal. Most math journals aren't double blind (as you say, I can often tell who the authors are) -- but this i

I once reviewed a math paper for a double-blind journal. Most math journals aren't double blind (as you say, I can often tell who the authors are) -- but this is one focused on expositional articles that undergrads might enjoy. Anyway, I read it, didn't find it all that interesting, and recommended that the paper be rejected. Afterwards, I googled the paper's title and found a signed copy: the author was one of the most respected scientists in our field, who had been a mentor to me and done a huge amount for my career. I was immediately embarrassed: I rejected his work? And right then I had my moment of zen.

ghaff 4y ago
As someone who has been on the conference committee for (non-academic) conferences, I'm not a particular fan of blind selections. Yes, I get the desire to not just give slots to "the usual suspects" which at least historically has often happened at a lot of conferences I attended. But the reality is that there are people who you know based on overwhelming experience will give great talks that attendees will appreciate and learn from. Even if they submitted an abstract that didn't immediately catch your eye among the pile you're going to accept 25% of, do you really want to reject them? Assuming the committee has some commitment to new/less known speakers there are IMO better ways to spread the love than blinding.
- xdavidliu 4y ago
  > there are people who you know based on overwhelming experience will give great talks that attendees will appreciate and learn from ... do you really want to reject them? If I'm reading correctly, you're saying that sometimes a work deserves to get in based (at least partly) on the author's name recognition (for historically having given good talks) and not solely on the merits of the work itself. I see the point you're trying to make, but something about this argument makes me uncomfortable.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    An abstract isn't a talk. It's a limited description of a topic (which is often written pretty quickly by experienced presenters). So, yes, someone who consistently delivers is probably going to do a pretty good job unless the abstract just seems uninteresting. i.e. a good presenter can pick a topic I just don't think attendees would be interested in or, more commonly, just isn't a good fit for the program. More broadly, yes, you need to balance having people you know will do a solid job whatever their abstract against welcoming new speakers. Imagine a resume is just so-so. But you've worked with a person and know they're great. Do you judge them based on their resume?

ghaff 4y ago

As someone who has been on the conference committee for (non-academic) conferences, I'm not a particular fan of blind selections. Yes, I get the desire to not just give slots to "the usual suspects" which at least historically has often happened at a lot of conferences I attended. But the reality is that there are people who you know based on overwhelming experience will give great talks that attendees will appreciate and learn from. Even if they submitted an abstract that didn't immediately catch your eye among the pile you're going to accept 25% of, do you really want to reject them? Assuming the committee has some commitment to new/less known speakers there are IMO better ways to spread the love than blinding.

xdavidliu 4y ago
> there are people who you know based on overwhelming experience will give great talks that attendees will appreciate and learn from ... do you really want to reject them? If I'm reading correctly, you're saying that sometimes a work deserves to get in based (at least partly) on the author's name recognition (for historically having given good talks) and not solely on the merits of the work itself. I see the point you're trying to make, but something about this argument makes me uncomfortable.
- ghaff 4y ago
  An abstract isn't a talk. It's a limited description of a topic (which is often written pretty quickly by experienced presenters). So, yes, someone who consistently delivers is probably going to do a pretty good job unless the abstract just seems uninteresting. i.e. a good presenter can pick a topic I just don't think attendees would be interested in or, more commonly, just isn't a good fit for the program. More broadly, yes, you need to balance having people you know will do a solid job whatever their abstract against welcoming new speakers. Imagine a resume is just so-so. But you've worked with a person and know they're great. Do you judge them based on their resume?