ACM Home
IFIP Home
----
SIGMETRICS 2001 / Performance 2001 Home
Call for Papers
Organizing Committee
Technical Program Committee
Registration Information
Advanced Technical Program
Tutorials
Workshops
Travel Support for Students
Travel Related Information
Other Links of Interest
Electronic Papers Submission Instructions
----

 

SIGMETRICS 2001 / Performance 2001

Double-blind reviewing: writing for anonymity
All papers submitted to the ACM SIGMETRICS/Performance conference undergo a "double-blind" reviewing process - the authors do not know the identity of the program committee members and referees who review the paper, nor do the program committee members and referees know the identity of the authors.

In order to preserve the anonymity of authorship, authors must take care in preparing their manuscript:

  • Remove authors' names and affiliations from the title page.
  • Remove acknowledgement of funding sources(s) from the title page.
  • Use care in naming your files.  For example, if your name is Joe Smith and you submit a postscript file generated from a dvi file called Joe.Smith.dvi, one might easily infer that you are the author by looking into the postscript file.
  • Use care in referring to related past work, particularly your own, in the paper.  For example, if you are Joe Smith, the following text gives away the authorship of the submitted paper:
      In our previous work [1,2], we presented two models of an architecture for .....  In this paper, we build on that work by ..

      Bibliography

      [1] Joe Smith, "A Simple Model of ....," Proceeedings of ACM Sigmetrics 1997, pp. 1 - 10.
      [2] Joe Smith, "A Detailed Model of ....," Proceeedings of ACM Sigmetrics 1998, pp., 34 - 44.
       

    On the other hand, it is important to reference related past work in order to set the context for the current paper.  Thus, the following style of writing (which preserves anonymity but leaves the reader unable to grasp the context of the submitted paper) is also unacceptable and should be avoided:
      In our previous work [1,2], we presented two models of an architecture for .....  In this paper, we build on that work by ..

      Bibliography

      [1] reference removed for double blind reviewing
      [2] reference removed for double blind reviewing
       

    A good solution is to reference your past work in the third person (just as you would any other piece of work that is related to the submitted paper).  This allows you to set the context for the submitted paper, while at the same time preserving anonymity:
      In previous work [1,2], the authors presented two models of an architecture for .....  In this paper, we build on that work by ..

      Bibliography

      [1] Joe Smith, "A Simple Model of ....," Proceeedings of ACM Sigmetrics 1997, pp. 1 - 10.
      [2] Joe Smith, "A Detailed Model of ....," Proceeedings of ACM Sigmetrics 19987, pp., 34 - 44.
       

In the end, common sense and careful writing can go a long way towards preserving anonymity.  Remember -  the goal is to preserve anonymity while at the same time allow the reader to fully grasp the context (related past work, including your own) of the submitted paper.
 

[Comments or questions: sigmetrics2001-pchairs@cs.umd.edu]
[Last updated Sat Sep 23 2000]