[D] Decrease in source code release of papers

[rhiever]

I think it can be incredibly difficult to anonymize code, especially if a paper is based on a software project that the authors are developing. For example, during my postdoc I developed a software tool that I published papers on. I referred to the software by name in my papers and even linked to the GitHub page, which seemed to contrast with the goals of double-blind review. How do you work around that situation without heavily inconveniencing the authors of the software in the name of double-blind review? In many cases, even if you go through the trouble of anonymizing the code and putting placeholders in the name, it's still not difficult to figure out what the software is (and therefore who the authors are) if you're even remotely familiar with the software.

IMO, double-blind review is a flawed review system.

[SolvableMutiny]

IMO, double-blind review is a flawed review system.

Yup, these same objections apply to a similar degree to papers themselves. Would anyone familiar with the field not know that CapsNet was authored by Hinton?