Abstract
The standard approach for evaluating scientific contributions by software engineering venues is peer-reviewing. Papers submitted for consideration by a venue are sent to peers (i.e., expert colleagues in the field), who carefully read them and provide corresponding evaluation reports, i.e., the peer reviews. Peer-reviewing comes in various alternative forms, as discussed in the teaser column of this series [1]. The teaser also pointed out some questions currently motivating discussion within the software engineering community: Which is the "best" among currently adopted peer-reviewing alternatives? Would it be better to have zero-blind, single-blind, or double-blind reviews? How many, and which stages should be involved in the process of peer-reviewing? Are currently adopted peer-reviewing processes sustainable in the long run? These are just a few examples of questions setting up the discussion, with many other questions outside there and yet to come.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
