The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Advice On Anonomyzing For Peer Review

By Justin Caouette

When submitting a paper for blind review we are asked to remove all identifying information like our name, acknowledgements to places we have given the paper, and references to our own work when possible. This all makes sense to accomplish the goal of a solid blind review. But how far should we go to ensure the reviewer cannot find out about our work? I'd like to share a story but I will leave out all identifying information as one of the person's involved would rather not share their identity. I'd be curious to hear what you all think about the request and some of the concerns the person receiving the request has raised, here it goes.

Let me start by saying that the two people involved are junior people and both are on the job market. Person A recently gave comments at a recent well established conference in the discipline. "A" was proud to give these comments and spent money and time to get to the venue to deliver them. "A" put the commentary on their CV and called it a day. Nothing fancy, something like "Comments on X's paper blah, blah, blah, at the really cool conference 2016". "A" thought the comments went well and found the exchange and ensuing discussion to be fruitful. After making some changes to the paper the author of the paper, I will call them "X", planned to submit the paper for publication. "X" contacted "A" and asked "A" to take down the paper title so it cannot be found by possible reviewers, "X"  asked that the title of the paper and their name be removed from their CV so that the paper could be submitted for blind review. In other words, X thinks this request is reasonable and would help to ensure blind review. However, "A" brought up some good points as to why they should be able to keep the author's name and paper title on their CV. 

First, it seems to do a disservice to "A" because to take down the paper title and the name of the author is to remove some of the only activity from their CV that they added this year. Second, they spent money and time to present and now they would not be able to be credited for this at a time when CV's are looked at closely because they are applying for jobs. Third, commenting in a specific area shows that "A" is knowledgeable in that area, however without a paper title it's tough to tell what "A" presented at the conference. Lastly, pulling it from their CV doesn't remove the title from the conference program which is available online so it seems pointless to remove it from "A"'s CV unless it is also removed entirely from the internet.

Now, I must say that all of these points seem valid to me, but at the same time the request also seems legitimate. After all, "X" is simply prepping their paper for blind review and is doing some extra work to ensure that the reviewer cannot connect them to the paper. So, I am unsure what the person should do (which is why I am asking the Cocoon community for their input). I am sure the conference has a list of papers given (and author names connected to them) so if someone REALLY wants to find out I am sure they can. But, I am new to this so maybe this sort of thing is the norm. I'm leaning toward advising "A" to keep it up and explain to "X" why, but I wanted to discuss it here first as I don't want to offend "X". Ahhhh! Well, what do you say Cocooners (and others reading this)? 

Posted in

13 responses to “Advice On Anonomyzing For Peer Review”

  1. Jerry Green

    Interesting case. I’ve never heard of an author going to those lengths to preserve blind review.
    Since I’m a big proponent of blind-review preservation, I’m basically on X’s side here. But I think there’s a decent compromise I would use if I were A. Basically, I’d keep the entry on the CV, but with a format like:
    (2015) “Comments on [Title and Author removed for Blind review”, Actual Name of Conference.
    I think you can get away with keeping the conference name, because most readers wouldn’t be able to connect X and A unless they were at X’s session. I suppose its possible that a single person could (i) be on a committee and see A’s CV while (ii) simultaneously be the referee for X’s paper, and (iii) also be one of the conference participants, and so infer from A’s CV that X’s paper was one of those papers presented. But I don’t think that’s problem, because (in addition to the very small likelihood), if a referee were at the conference and could remember X’s talk, they could do so regardless of A’s CV.
    So, all in all, I think this approach would allow A to get the benefit of keeping the conference name on the CV without adding to the likelihood that X’s anonymity is damaged during the review process.

    Reply
  2. Jerry Green

    One other thing: Asking to remove the paper title from a website is reasonable, since its easily google-able. Asking to remove the title from a CV seems less reasonable.
    If you embed your CV as a viewable doc or as a downloadable file (like I do here: http://jerrygreen.weebly.com/cv.html), then I don’t think a ref would be able to find it unless they’re already reading A’s website (at least in normal circumstances)

    Reply
  3. SH

    “Please do this thing that will negatively impact your CV, so that when a reviewer knowingly and purposefully attempts to violate the blind review process, I will not be negatively impacted. Thanks!”
    The obligation is on the reviewer to not try to hunt down the paper’s author! The only way A’s CV could interfere with blind review is if the reviewer is purposefully looking to discover the author of the paper. Certainly reviewers do that, but they shouldn’t. The reviewer’s potential violation of their obligations does not create this obligation for A.

    Reply
  4. Douglas W. Portmore

    I don’t think that X should expect A to remove such an item from his or her CV. And I think that it’s even a bit impolite even to ask that this be done. Perhaps, X could give the paper a different title when presenting it. But, of course, there’s always the chance that a future referee will be in the audience.

    Reply
  5. shane wilkins

    I think “X” is being a bit overzealous here. Anonymizing is meant as a best practice to keep readers from being accidentally influence by factors other than the quality of the paper before them. It isn’t meant to stop a persistent reader who is trying to compromise the blind review process. I keep my “works in progress” off my website and off my online CV as a “best practice” just in case someone who is reading one of my submissions might stumble across it, but I think it’s highly unlikely that something like this would happen in “X”s case where the reader is reading X’s paper and accidentally comes across the “commentaries” section of “A”‘s online CV.

    Reply
  6. Not-X

    X has no claim on A. Indeed, A has every right to post their accomplishments on their c.v. and every right (though I would not) to post their c.v. where ever they want to.
    If X is really concerned, then s/he should change the title of her/his paper when s/he submits it to a journal. That is an action in X’s control.

    Reply
  7. Justin Caouette

    This is all very helpful! Thanks so much for chiming in, everyone.
    I agree with most of what has been said and I think there are lots of good suggestions here. I initially shared many of the same sentiments being expressed when I first heard the story, though I may be a bit more sympathetic to X now than I was initially.
    I started the second para with some information that helps me understand X’s concern for trying to go above and beyond to anonomyze. I said “Let me start by saying that the two people involved are junior people and both are on the job market.” This is important. As graduate students we often feel that we will not be taken seriously if one knows that we are mere grad students. So I can understand X’s attempt to go above and beyond, I just don’t think X should use ‘A’ to accomplish that goal. I think the suggestion by “Not-X” is a reasonable one, however I am unsure if X has or has not submitted the manuscript for publication yet. I’m under the impression that it has not been submitted yet.

    Reply
  8. Chris Stephens

    I agree with Not-X. I’m somewhat surprised anyone (other than X) thinks otherwise.

    Reply
  9. Jonathan Weinberg

    Isn’t the easiest solution for X to submit the paper under a different title than the one that appeared on the conference program? I suspect they could even change it back to match the conference title, upon acceptance.

    Reply
  10. Michel X.

    I’m with the others: provisional title change seems like the best preventive measure here. It’s also the one which is going to require the least amount of work on X’s part. I certainly wouldn’t have the energy (not to mention desire!) to hunt down all my commentators, pose the request, and then argue for it if they were resistant. The time is just better spent finding a placeholder title and moving on.

    Reply
  11. Rob

    I agree with Not-X. I’m very surprised anyone (including X) thinks otherwise.

    Reply
  12. Jonathan Ichikawa

    I agree with the consensus against X. If anonymous reviewing is that important to X, the solution is to refrain from presenting papers at conferences before publishing them. (I suggest modus tollens.)

    Reply
  13. Elisa Freschi

    Sorry for intruding so late. I appreciate X’s concerns, since, as a reviewer who tries not to find out who the author is, I am often very annoyed by how authors leave obvious traces, such as using titles like “Studies in X, part 2”, so that having read part 1 is enough to know who the author is. However, the solution is easy and advisable for all cases (since reviewers may have been at the same conference or at least read the program): Use different titles for conference papers and published versions thereof. Why don’t we all agree about it?

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Justin CaouetteCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading