Double blind reviewing is mentioned, but is glossed over as &quot;not ready yet&quot;. This is what we should be focused on improving. The big problem seems to be that editors have more oversight than the reviewers and can see who the authors are.<p>Most of the top journals and conferences already enforce double blind reviewing, so in principle nobody knows who anyone is. The submission requirements ask that you do not reference yourself directly in your work so that the reviewers can&#x27;t infer anything.<p>On the other hand it&#x27;s often obvious who a submission is from if you know the people in the field, so that goes out of the window. This also doesn&#x27;t stop political rejection, where the reviewer has an interest in the research and claims &quot;Oh this has already been done&quot;.<p>I also have no doubt that certain big names in academia would kick up a huge fuss if their work was rejected.<p>&gt; However, the speaker should choose a sufficiently different title from her publication.<p>What&#x27;s the point of that? So I give a talk, I have to come up with a different name for my work and then when I tell people &quot;You can read about it in my paper here&quot; I&#x27;ve given the game away. Or do I have to make everyone play hide and seek trying to guess which paper is mine?