The Myth of Double-Blind Review Revisited: ACL vs. EMNLP

Cornelia Caragea, Ana Uban, Liviu P. Dinu


Abstract
The review and selection process for scientific paper publication is essential for the quality of scholarly publications in a scientific field. The double-blind review system, which enforces author anonymity during the review period, is widely used by prestigious conferences and journals to ensure the integrity of this process. Although the notion of anonymity in the double-blind review has been questioned before, the availability of full text paper collections brings new opportunities for exploring the question: Is the double-blind review process really double-blind? We study this question on the ACL and EMNLP paper collections and present an analysis on how well deep learning techniques can infer the authors of a paper. Specifically, we explore Convolutional Neural Networks trained on various aspects of a paper, e.g., content, style features, and references, to understand the extent to which we can infer the authors of a paper and what aspects contribute the most. Our results show that the authors of a paper can be inferred with accuracy as high as 87% on ACL and 78% on EMNLP for the top 100 most prolific authors.
Anthology ID:
D19-1236
Volume:
Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP)
Month:
November
Year:
2019
Address:
Hong Kong, China
Venues:
EMNLP | IJCNLP
SIG:
SIGDAT
Publisher:
Association for Computational Linguistics
Note:
Pages:
2317–2327
Language:
URL:
https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D19-1236
DOI:
10.18653/v1/D19-1236
Bib Export formats:
BibTeX MODS XML EndNote
PDF:
http://aclanthology.lst.uni-saarland.de/D19-1236.pdf