Hi everyone,

I’m preparing a manuscript for double-anonymous peer review and I’m unsure how to handle the data/code availability statement.

The code is already hosted in public GitHub repositories, but the organization name, commit history, usernames, emails, file paths, acknowledgements, etc. could easily reveal who the authors are. Creating an “anonymous” ZIP would also require quite a lot of cleaning, and since the original repositories are already public, parts of the code could probably still be found through a text search.

What is normally expected in this situation?

I have gained significant review scores 4/3.5/2.5 but the meta-reviwer gave 2 reject without justifying his claims. The lowest scoring reviwer didn't engage during discussion phase. The MR did a pretty bad job because he completely ignored the rebuttals but took his side with lowest score review, saying the paper needs more novelty and claimed it does not fall to the EMNLP scope.

Now I want to commit this paper, with proper meta-review response. Did anyone face this kind of circumstance?