> Prior to the event, I reviewed many of the PoPETS (the quarterly academic
> journal run by PETS) paper submissions. Several of these were pertinent to my
> interests. I'm not supposed to say which ones I reviewed, and I find this
> requirement to be in harsh conflict with cross-community open discussion of
> ideas. This may be the only time I'll ever be opposed to anonymity, but
> academia's manditorily-"anonymous" submission/review system should be
> destroyed.
Is it true that PoPETS reviewers aren’t supposed to deanonymize themselves? If
so, that is not a consistent policy across all peer publication venues. For
example, I have seen intentionally-signed reviews at ACM CCS. My understanding
is that the main reason reviewers are anonymous is to allow them to provide
frank assessments. If a reviewer isn't worried about that, then that concern
wouldn’t seem to apply.
I would encourage you to bring this concern to the PoPETS editors (Claudia
Diaz, Rachel Greenstadt, and Damon McCoy <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>). If this is the PoPETS policy, then I
oppose it as well.
Best,
Aaron
_______________________________________________
tor-reports mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-reports
