My peers told me, at least in the field of machine learning, it seems acceptable to upload your (draft) paper to Arxiv before submitting it to a conference. I am confused about how it does not contradict the double blind review practiced by many popular conferences.

  • yes somewhat, but it can seem subjective so I want to see more views on this matter
    – Sam
    Commented May 9, 2023 at 14:48

3 Answers 3


Conferences try their best to accommodate ArXiv submissions because of the reality of CS publications. For example, NeurIPS says:

The existence of non-anonymous preprints (on arXiv or other online repositories, personal websites, social media) will not result in rejection. If you choose to use the NeurIPS style for the preprint version, you must use the “preprint” option rather than the “final” option. Reviewers will be instructed not to actively look for such preprints, but encountering them will not constitute a conflict of interest. Authors may submit anonymized work to NeurIPS that is already available as a preprint (e.g., on arXiv) without citing it. Note that public versions of the submission should not say "Under review at NeurIPS" or similar.

So you can upload your paper to ArXiv, but not say it's being reviewed at NeurIPS or it may be grounds for rejection.

Do reviewers look for paper authors? This is probably true in at least some cases. For at least some papers I reviewed I knew who the authors were, since I saw the paper presented at a talk/workshop/seminar. This is usually ok, as long as you believe that you can still offer an impartial review of the results. Ultimately, despite ML being a relatively large field, it consists of many small-ish communities (some with maybe 5-10 groups working on the topic), so if you've been a reviewer for a couple of years, you can guess with very high probability whose paper you're reviewing (I can almost immediately identify some authors based solely on their writing style).

Ultimately, the whole reviewing endeavor is a very large exercise in trust. We trust authors to not make up results; we trust reviewers to act ethically; stakeholders trust scientists to do the right thing (and not, say, cause the robot apocalypse).

  • 1
    this clears things up a lot. thank you for sharing your take on this issue.
    – Sam
    Commented May 9, 2023 at 16:59

I'm not in that field, but I have sometimes had review requests for venues that have double-blind review. In these instances I was told not to search for the paper online or otherwise deliberately find out who the authors were, but that I could still review even if I happened to have seen the paper before.

It may be that some venues make double-blind work by having a no-arXiv policy for submissions, in which case I would expect this to be very clearly specified in the guidelines to authors. But in my area arXiv is so ubiquitous that this just wouldn't be feasible.


The reality of review (I know this because my first ever peer review was for a single blind journal) isn't just whether it's double blind. The issue is "can the reviewer be objective". So, assuming you and the author aren't friends or coworkers or it's your advisor, you knowing the identity shouldn't matter or impact your results.

I read over another work by the people who's paper I reviewed. And I liked it! But, I still gave the exact same review I would've given otherwise when it came to their journal submission, even though I'd emailed the authors before.

Of course for specific conferences they'll have their own rules, but for journals at least, the issue is objectivity, not simply "do I know whose name it is".

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .