[a3_nm]

This is an interesting article but it contributes a bit to terminological confusion about reviewing modes.

First, the article talks about "double-blind reviewing" as being "logistically hard" because reviewers can "find the paper in a Google search", and talks about a "price tag". By contrast, many conferences around me implement so-called "lightweight double-blind" reviewing, which takes zero effort and just means that the authors and affiliations are not mentioned on the copy of the paper that reviewers read. I think this form of double-blind is a no-brainer, eliminating some bias with essentially no downside; and that discussions about the cost and complexity of double-blind reviewing are a distraction from this immediate improvement.

Here is a typical paragraph from a call for papers (here, STACS 2023) describing the policy:

  As in the previous two years, STACS 2023 will employ a lightweight double-blind reviewing process: submissions should not reveal the identity of the authors in any way. The purpose of the double-blind reviewing is to help PC members and external reviewers come to an initial judgment about the paper without bias, not to make it impossible for them to discover the authors if they were to try. Nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens the submission or makes the job of reviewing the paper more difficult. In particular, important references should not be omitted or anonymized. In addition, authors should feel free to disseminate their ideas or draft versions of their paper as they normally would. For example, authors may post drafts of their papers on the web, submit them to arXiv, and give talks on their research ideas.

Second, the article talks about "open review" as meaning "everyone’s identity is public". This is sometimes what the term means, but not always -- for instance the OpenReview.net platform <https://openreview.net/> supports forms of open reviewing where the reviewers are still anonymous. Here "open" means "the discussion happens in the open, and everyone can post comments about the paper and reviews and contribute to the discussion". Here again, I feel that the discussion about "open reviewing" with non-anonymous reviewers is drawing attention away from this model which looks like a net improvement over the status quo.