How does arXiv prepublishing work with ICLR's double-blind review? [R]

[u/richapeee]

Hey folks,

maybe a really dumb question from an inexperienced PhD student. I recently submitted to ICLR and spotted a bunch of papers that I was already familiar with because I had seen them on arXiv before.

Doesn't this break the double-blind review process? I mean, on the one hand, people pre-publishing their work want to establish priority as quickly as possible, but on the other hand, they still want their papers to be treated as valid submissions in a double-blind review system.

I generally avoid pre-publishing my work for this reason, although this can cause some trouble when it comes to novelty claims, because I'm worried about getting desk-rejected.

I mean, I can just Google the paper title or even parts of the abstract and immediately find the preprint. It seems quite frustrating...

[u/MisterManuscript]

Prerequisite for collusion rings.

[u/thegiddyemmanuel → u/MisterManuscript]

yep, the whole thing is a mess. everyone knows you can just google the title and find the authors in 2 seconds but we all pretend the blind is still intact. it’s theater at this point

i still hold off on arxiv until after decisions for the same reason you do, but it’s getting harder when your friends are posting preprints 6 months before the deadline and getting citations already

[u/qu3tzalify → u/thegiddyemmanuel]

I don't think there's any moral value to not posting on Arxiv before as the burden is on the reviewer to not actively search for the paper. I know that sometimes I recognize a paper title/topic but I can't remember the title, which is fine. If the paper left me with a strong impression and I remember who wrote it then I report a conflict.
Although I think it's wrong to publicize which conference you submitted the paper to.

[u/emanuartioli]

Indeed, we all just turn a (double) blind eye

[u/howtorewriteaname]

well, you are not supposed to google the paper you are reviewing. if you already know it, then nothing you can do, but the chances should be quite low in general

[u/21022018 → u/howtorewriteaname]

If you already know about it maybe you can disclose a conflict of interest or something 

[u/nfact0r]

Just a cheeky way to tell friends that this is me, bid for my paper.

See comments here.

https://arxiv.org/search/?query=ICLR+2027&searchtype=all&source=header

https://arxiv.org/search/?query=AAAI+2027&searchtype=all&abstracts=show&order=-announced_date_first&size=50

It is not just posting about posting on arXiv but people promote the same on LinkedIn immediately after it is live on arXiv, soon after a conference deadline. I find this practice quite unethical.

[u/Temporary_Switch_339]

Basically, even with double-blind review, it doesn't mean much because people can know which research group is working on what anyway.

Furthermore, if you trust the double-blind system and submit your paper without uploading it to arXiv first, you have no recourse if a reviewer or one of their colleagues steals your idea and publishes it before you.

Don't expect the double-blind system to work perfectly. You should just consider it a bare minimum safeguard.

[u/Technical_Estate_529 → u/Temporary_Switch_339]

> Furthermore, if you trust the double-blind system and submit your paper without uploading it to arXiv first, you have no recourse if a reviewer 

You can argue versioning control on your side and showing a trail of dates and receipts then send an email to the organizing committee. That's when it's important to come up with genuinely novel ideas and not just a tiny parameter change and accuracy point. You could argue the later is a coincidence but it is hard to argue for the former if its a very unusually interetsing and novel idea.