Publishing perils include single-blind review

The perils of copy and paste: plagiarism in scientific publishing.

Double Blind Reviews in SE conferences: Practicability, Promises, and Perils

The peer review process is central to the scientific method, the advancement and spread of research as well as crucial for individual careers. As such, a single blind review process is susceptible towards apparent and hidden biases in the reviewers, as they know the identity of the authors. In this paper, we perform an extensive study on the benefits and costs that would be associated with intr...

Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review

Peer review may be "single-blind," in which reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of paper authors, or "double-blind," in which this information is hidden. Noting that computer science research often appears first or exclusively in peer-reviewed conferences rather than journals, we study these two reviewing models in the context of the 10th Association for Computing Machinery Intern...

Privacy preserving data publishing: Review

Privacy preserving data publishing (PPDP) methods a new class of privacy preserving data mining (PPDM) technology, has been developed by the research community working on security and knowledge discovery. It is common to share data between two organizations in many application areas. When data are to be shared between parties, there could be some sensitive patterns which should not be disclosed...

Affirming science and peer-review publishing.

896 Am J Health-Syst Pharm—Vol 66 May 15, 2009 Copyright © 2009, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights reserved. 1079-2082/09/0502-0896$06.00. Affirming science and peer-review publishing of scientific exploration if researchers felt constrained from publicly reporting such differences. For publishers, the decision defends the sanctity of the time-honored peer-review pr...