| 1 | Nov 1, 2011 4:29 PM | See previous answer. |
| 2 | Nov 1, 2011 8:23 AM | Not being able to say that all of those are my work and just referring to them as given and proceed obviously hurts. |
| 3 | Oct 23, 2011 10:12 PM | See bove |
| 4 | Oct 22, 2011 2:33 PM | I wasn't building on prior work, so for this specific submission blinding was effortless. |
| 5 | Oct 22, 2011 11:35 AM | n/a |
| 6 | Oct 22, 2011 5:01 AM | Sorry, it is my first paper that I ever submitted so I cannot give a good answer about this. |
| 7 | Oct 21, 2011 2:16 PM | See prior response. It's a bit awkward but in this case probably had little to no substantive impact. |
| 8 | Oct 21, 2011 2:14 PM | Comparison with our previous results was more subtle and difficult trying to avoid to reveal our identities |
| 9 | Oct 17, 2011 6:38 PM | As a result of removing the fact that our design choice was motivated by substantial experience in our group, reviewers were skeptical that the design choice was well-motivated. I don't think it was a huge effect but it was negative. |
| 10 | Oct 17, 2011 3:31 PM | I think reviewers were confused about the relation of our system to previous work by us. |
| 11 | Oct 17, 2011 10:52 AM | (See answer above.) |
| 12 | Oct 17, 2011 8:04 AM | The reviewers were clearly confused and mislead by our "blinded" explanation of what we had done. |
| 13 | Oct 17, 2011 7:46 AM | The answer is the same as question 2: we had to omit some of the contributions to not reveal our identity. |