Bsrgvty

I and my coauthor wrote a paper and the project involved creating a (small) software library. Part of the novelty of the paper is the output of the code, which is a digital object not intended for by-hand manipulation. The code (open source) would ideally also be useful for others. One journal to which I was considering submitting this requires double-blind peer review, but the GitHub repo where the code is stored, referenced in the paper, identifies one of us simply by looking at the username in the url. We can of course obscure our identities in the paper as authors, but really need to cite the code repository.

I've not had to do double blind review before, and so it's not clear what we should do. My coauthor is going to run into more problems of this sort as they continue research with a similar mix of code-and-paper as output.

Is there anything we can do, at least as a first attempt to soothe the journals worries?

Censor out the repo's name, and provide code to the referees as an auxiliary file.

• Make a copy of the repository available at an anonymous URL, e.g., using Google Drive with a fresh account.




• Submit a copy of the repository with your manuscript (if permitted by the journal), alternatively, send the repository to the editor by email.

I'm literally in the same situation as you right now, and came across this repository/service on GitHub a few days ago:. Since your code and names are already public, it only provides a basic level of obfuscation. However, as long as reviewers are being honest and not actively trying to find out the names of the authors, then it should keep them from accidentally discovering who you are.

Beyond that, the most effective approach is not releasing it publicly until after review, and instead providing the code/documentation/whatever privately through the journal. My concern with this approach is that it depends on removing any name association from the material. So what happens if a reviewer rejects the manuscript, then publishes the code or parts of it as their own before you? The lack of a public record on your part could make it a bit of a headache to resolve.

Ultimately, there's not much you can do about reviewers that intentionally try to circumvent the anonymity. Even without your name anywhere, if you've published before, someone could potentially still get a pretty good idea of who you are through the content and patterns in the manuscript itself.

The simplest thing to do (which I'm surprised has not been suggested before, and is reasonably common) is to create an anonymous GitHub account and duplicate your code there (upload the code in a single commit, don't duplicate the repository itself as you don't want your real username to be present in the commit history).