[tor-reports] PETS 2016 Reportback

[Aaron Johnson]

> 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 <pets17-chairs at petsymposium.org <mailto:pets17-chairs at petsymposium.org>>). If this is the PoPETS policy, then I oppose it as well.

Best,
Aaron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-reports/attachments/20160805/98c13b14/attachment.html>