Double-blind conferences have engaged in debates over whether to allow authors to post their papers online on arXiv or elsewhere during the review process. Independently, some authors of research papers face the dilemma of whether to put their papers on arXiv due to its pros and cons. We conduct a study to substantiate this debate and dilemma via quantitative measurements. Specifically, we conducted surveys of reviewers in two top-tier double-blind computer science conferences -- ICML 2021 (5361 submissions and 4699 reviewers) and EC 2021 (498 submissions and 190 reviewers). Our two main findings are as follows. First, more than a third of the reviewers self-report searching online for a paper they are assigned to review. Second, outside the review process, we find that preprints from better-ranked affiliations see a weakly higher visibility, with a correlation of 0.06 in ICML and 0.05 in EC. In particular, papers associated with the top-10-ranked affiliations had a visibility of approximately 11% in ICML and 22% in EC, whereas the remaining papers had a visibility of 7% and 18% respectively.
翻译:在审查过程中,一些研究论文的作者单独面临一个两难困境,即是否将论文放在ArXiv上。我们进行了一项研究,以便通过定量测量来证实这一辩论和进退两难。具体地说,我们在两个顶级双盲计算机科学会议 -- -- ICML 2021(5361个提交材料和4699个审查者)和EC 2021(498个提交材料和190个审查者)和EC 2021(498个提交材料和190个审查者)对审查人员进行了调查。我们的两个主要结论如下:第一,三分之一以上在网上搜索的自报,他们被指派审查的论文。第二,在审查过程之外,我们发现,分级较强的关联关系中的预印品的能见度较低,ICML为0.06,EC为0.05。特别是,与前十级关系有关的论文在ICML的能见度约为11%,欧盟委员会的能见度为22%,而其余的文件的能见度分别为7%和18%。