ArXiv Uploads & ACM-CCS-2026 Review: A Proposal

Hey guys! Let's dive into a fascinating discussion about academic publishing and how it's evolving. Specifically, we're going to explore a proposal concerning the ACM-CCS-2026 conference and the practice of uploading papers to archival services like arXiv before or during the review process. This is a significant topic, so grab your thinking caps, and let's get started!

The Core of the Proposal: Balancing Open Access and Blind Review

The heart of this proposal lies in a really interesting balancing act: how can we embrace the principles of open access and rapid dissemination of research findings while still maintaining the integrity of the blind review process? You know, blind review is super crucial for ensuring fairness and objectivity in academic evaluations. The idea is that reviewers shouldn't be swayed by the authors' identities or affiliations, allowing them to focus solely on the quality and novelty of the work.

However, the traditional publishing model often involves a lengthy review process, and researchers are increasingly keen to share their work more quickly and widely. This is where services like arXiv come into play. These platforms allow researchers to upload pre-prints of their papers, making them available to the global community almost immediately. This can foster faster collaboration, gather early feedback, and accelerate the overall pace of scientific progress. But, there's a potential conflict: if a paper is available on arXiv, reviewers might be able to identify the authors, potentially compromising the blind review process. This is the core issue we need to unpack. The proposal suggests explicitly allowing submissions to services like arXiv before and during the review phase for ACM-CCS-2026. The crucial element here is that the submitted version should still adhere to the blinding guidelines outlined in the Call for Papers (CfP) draft. This means authors would need to take steps to remove any identifying information from their manuscripts before submission. This might involve omitting author names and affiliations, redacting self-citations, and taking care to avoid language that could reveal their identity. However, the proposal also includes a critical caveat: reviewers should be strongly discouraged from actively trying to deanonymize a submission. This means refraining from activities like searching arXiv or ePrint to identify the authors. This is a really important point because the success of this proposal hinges on the ethical conduct of reviewers.

Why This Matters: The Benefits of Early Dissemination

So, why is this proposal even on the table? Well, there are some compelling reasons to consider allowing pre-prints. Let's break down the key advantages of early dissemination:

• Accelerated Knowledge Sharing: One of the biggest benefits of allowing pre-prints is the speed at which research can be shared. Traditional publication timelines can be quite lengthy, sometimes taking months or even years for a paper to be formally published in a journal or conference proceeding. By uploading to arXiv, researchers can make their findings available to the community much faster, facilitating quicker dissemination of knowledge. This rapid sharing is particularly crucial in fast-moving fields where timely access to information is essential. Imagine a breakthrough in cybersecurity – the sooner that information is shared, the sooner the community can start building upon it and addressing potential threats.
• Enhanced Feedback and Collaboration: Pre-prints provide an opportunity for researchers to receive feedback on their work before it undergoes formal peer review. This can be invaluable in identifying potential weaknesses, refining arguments, and improving the overall quality of the paper. The comments and suggestions received from the community can help authors strengthen their work and address any concerns before the final version is submitted for publication. Moreover, making pre-prints available can foster collaboration among researchers working on similar topics. By openly sharing their work, authors can connect with others who are interested in the same area, potentially leading to new collaborations and partnerships. This open exchange of ideas can significantly accelerate the pace of research and innovation. For example, a researcher might upload a pre-print detailing a novel cryptographic technique. Another researcher, upon reading the pre-print, might identify a potential vulnerability and contact the author. This kind of collaborative feedback loop can be incredibly beneficial.
• Increased Visibility and Impact: In today's digital age, pre-prints can significantly increase the visibility and impact of research. By making their work available on platforms like arXiv, authors can reach a much wider audience than they might through traditional publication channels alone. Pre-prints are often indexed by search engines, making them easily discoverable by researchers around the world. This increased visibility can lead to more citations and greater recognition for the authors and their work. Furthermore, pre-prints can serve as a valuable tool for early career researchers who are looking to establish their reputation in the field. By making their work available as pre-prints, they can demonstrate their research capabilities and contribute to the scholarly conversation even before their papers are formally published. This can be particularly important for those seeking jobs or funding opportunities.

The Challenges: Protecting the Blind Review Process

Of course, this proposal isn't without its challenges. The most significant concern is how to safeguard the blind review process. As we've discussed, the integrity of peer review relies on reviewers being able to assess a paper without knowing the authors' identities. So, let's dive into the potential pitfalls and how we might address them:

• The Risk of Deanonymization: The biggest worry is that reviewers might intentionally or unintentionally deanonymize submissions. Even if authors meticulously blind their papers, a determined reviewer could potentially search online databases like arXiv or Google Scholar to try to identify the authors. This could introduce bias into the review process, as reviewers might be influenced by their prior knowledge of the authors or their institutions. To mitigate this risk, the proposal explicitly discourages reviewers from actively trying to deanonymize submissions. This is a crucial step, but it relies on the ethical behavior of reviewers. We need to consider how to reinforce this ethical expectation. Perhaps conferences could include a statement in their reviewer guidelines emphasizing the importance of respecting the blind review process and discouraging deanonymization attempts. There might also be technical solutions, such as using software that can detect and flag potential identifying information in submissions. However, these solutions are not foolproof, and ultimately, the responsibility rests with the reviewers themselves.
• The Pressure to Search: Even without malicious intent, reviewers might feel pressure to search for related work, and this could inadvertently lead them to pre-prints of the submitted paper. In a competitive field, reviewers want to ensure that the work they are evaluating is truly novel and makes a significant contribution. Searching for related publications is a natural part of this process. However, if a reviewer stumbles upon a pre-print of the submitted paper, it could compromise the blinding. This is a tricky issue because we don't want to discourage reviewers from conducting thorough literature reviews. One possible approach is to encourage reviewers to focus on the content of the paper itself and to avoid actively searching for information about the authors. It might also be helpful to provide reviewers with guidance on how to handle situations where they inadvertently encounter a pre-print of the submitted paper. For example, they could be advised to recuse themselves from the review process or to declare the conflict of interest to the program chairs.
• The Impact on Reviewer Bias: Even if reviewers don't explicitly deanonymize submissions, the mere knowledge that a pre-print might exist could introduce a subtle bias. Reviewers might subconsciously assume that a paper available on arXiv is of higher quality or has already been vetted by the community. This could lead them to give the paper a more favorable review, even if it doesn't fully deserve it. Conversely, a reviewer might be more critical of a paper they know is available as a pre-print, feeling that it has already had its chance to receive feedback. Addressing this potential bias is challenging because it's often unconscious. One approach is to raise awareness among reviewers about this issue and to encourage them to be mindful of their own biases. It might also be helpful to provide reviewers with specific criteria to use when evaluating papers, focusing on factors like novelty, technical soundness, and clarity of presentation. By emphasizing these objective criteria, we can help reviewers make more impartial judgments.

Finding the Right Balance: Potential Solutions and Best Practices

Okay, so we've laid out the benefits and the challenges. Now, how do we strike that delicate balance between open access and blind review? What practical steps can we take to make this proposal work? Let's brainstorm some potential solutions and best practices:

• Clear Guidelines for Authors: First and foremost, we need crystal-clear guidelines for authors on how to blind their submissions. This should go beyond simply removing names and affiliations. Authors should be advised to redact any information that could potentially reveal their identity, such as self-citations or references to unpublished work. It might also be helpful to provide authors with examples of how to blind their papers effectively. For instance, instead of saying