I would like to start/continue the discussion about the scientific publications, (blind) reviews and preprints.
We have wrote two blogposts and a paper with @atabb defending the right to do pre-acceptance preprints and benefits of doing so.
However, there is another point of view that double blind is more important thing than arXiving, which should be prohibited, at least in a non-anonymous form (specifically addressed in our blogpost and paper). I disagree with that point of view, but respect people who support it.
I would post here the links to the relevant discussions and agruments from the both sides.
- Hands off arXiv!
- What does it mean to publish your scientific paper in 2020?
- ArXiving Before Submission Helps Everyone
- Anna Rogers post Should the reviewers know who the authors are?
- ACM discussion on Twitter
- Andrew Fitzgibbon thread
The list above is obviously too short and I am going to update it.
What is your opinion on the topic? What is more important - double blind review, or ability to present your research work? Any comments are welcomed, as well as links to the discussions/papers online on the topic.