Blind Review Sanitizer

One-click removal of author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and excessive self-citations from manuscripts to meet double-blind peer review requirements. Preserves document structure while anonymizing sensitive information.

googolme@googolme

Install

openclaw skills install @googolme/blind-review-sanitizer

Blind Review Sanitizer

Automatically anonymize academic manuscripts for double-blind peer review by removing author identifiers, institutional affiliations, acknowledgments, and excessive self-citations while preserving document formatting and scholarly content integrity.

Key Capabilities:

Author Identity Removal: Automatically detect and redact author names, institutional affiliations, and contact information using pattern matching and customizable rules
Acknowledgment Section Sanitization: Identify and remove or flag acknowledgment sections that may reveal author identity through funding sources or personal thanks
Self-Citation Detection and Neutralization: Identify first-person citations and excessive self-references that could deanonymize the submission
Multi-Format Document Support: Process DOCX, Markdown, and plain text files with format-aware sanitization strategies
Audit Trail Generation: Create detailed logs of all redactions made for verification and transparency

Parameters

Parameter	Type	Required	Default	Description
`--input`	str	Yes	-	Path to input manuscript file (DOCX, MD, or TXT)
`--output`	str	Yes	-	Path for sanitized output file
`--authors`	list[str]	No	-	List of author names to redact
`--keep-acknowledgments`	bool	No	false	Whether to preserve acknowledgment sections
`--highlight-self-cites`	bool	No	false	Only highlight self-citations without replacement

When to Use

✅ Use this skill when:

Preparing a manuscript for double-blind peer review at journals requiring author anonymity
Submitting to conferences with anonymization requirements (e.g., NeurIPS, ICML, ACL, major medical journals)
Performing a final compliance check before submission to ensure no identifying information remains
Re-sanitizing a previously rejected manuscript for submission to a new venue with different anonymization standards
Creating anonymized versions of papers for public preprints while maintaining citation integrity
Processing collaborative manuscripts where some authors need to remain anonymous for specific submissions

❌ Do NOT use when:

Preparing for open peer review or journals with transparent review processes → Use cover-letter-drafter instead
The manuscript contains patent-pending innovations requiring author identification → Consult legal counsel first
You need to add author information rather than remove it → Use citation-formatter for bibliography management
Working with highly sensitive clinical data requiring HIPAA compliance → Use hipaa-compliance-auditor for medical data
The document uses complex LaTeX formatting with embedded author macros → Manual review required

Related Skills:

上游 (Upstream): cover-letter-drafter, citation-formatter, conflict-of-interest-checker
下游 (Downstream): journal-club-presenter, conference-abstract-adaptor

Integration with Other Skills

Upstream Skills:

cover-letter-drafter: Generate cover letters AFTER manuscript sanitization to avoid including blinded content in correspondence
citation-formatter: Format citations BEFORE sanitization to ensure proper numbering and formatting
conflict-of-interest-checker: Check co-author conflicts BEFORE anonymization to maintain disclosure accuracy

Downstream Skills:

journal-club-presenter: Create presentation materials using sanitized versions for external review
conference-abstract-adaptor: Adapt abstracts for conferences that may have different anonymity requirements

Complete Workflow:

text

Manuscript Writing → citation-formatter → conflict-of-interest-checker → blind-review-sanitizer → cover-letter-drafter → Submission

Core Capabilities

1. Author Identity Detection and Removal

Systematically identify and remove author names, institutional affiliations, and contact information from manuscripts using pattern recognition and user-specified rules.

python

from scripts.main import BlindReviewSanitizer

# Initialize sanitizer with known author names
sanitizer = BlindReviewSanitizer(
    authors=["Zhang San", "Li Si", "Wang Wu"],
    keep_acknowledgments=False,
    highlight_self_cites=False
)

# Process text content
text = """Zhang San¹, Li Si²
¹Tsinghua University Computer Science Department
²Peking University School of Information

Email: zhangsan@tsinghua.edu.cn"""

sanitized = sanitizer.sanitize_text(text)
print(sanitized)

Parameters:

Parameter	Type	Required	Description	Default
`authors`	List[str]	No	List of author names to redact. Improves accuracy when specified.	None
`case_sensitive`	bool	No	Whether author name matching is case-sensitive	False
`partial_match`	bool	No	Allow partial name matching (e.g., "Zhang" matches "Zhang San")	True

Best Practices:

✅ Always provide explicit author names when known to improve detection accuracy and reduce false positives
✅ Test with sample documents before processing important manuscripts to verify redaction patterns
✅ Include all name variants (full names, initials, anglicized versions) in the authors list
✅ Review output carefully for author names that may appear in figures, tables, or supplementary materials

Common Issues and Solutions:

Issue: Common words flagged as author names

Symptom: Words like "Wang" (meaning "king" in Chinese) or common English names appearing in text are incorrectly redacted
Solution: Use explicit author list with full names; disable partial matching for documents with many common name words

Issue: Author names in citations not detected

Symptom: "As Smith et al. (2023) showed..." retains author name when Smith is an author
Solution: Use self-citation detection mode which specifically targets author names in citation contexts

2. Institutional Affiliation Masking

Automatically detect and replace institutional identifiers including universities, research institutes, departments, and laboratories with generic placeholders.

python

from scripts.main import BlindReviewSanitizer

sanitizer = BlindReviewSanitizer()

# Institutional detection uses pattern matching
text_with_institutions = """
Department of Computer Science, Stanford University
Max Planck Institute for Informatics
MIT CSAIL Laboratory
"""

# Process institutional information
result = sanitizer._remove_institutions(text_with_institutions)
print(result)
# Output: [INSTITUTION], [INSTITUTION], [INSTITUTION]

Parameters:

Parameter	Type	Required	Description	Default
`institution_keywords`	List[str]	No	Custom keywords for institution detection	Predefined list
`strict_mode`	bool	No	Only match explicit institutional patterns, reduces false positives	False

Best Practices:

✅ Add custom institution keywords for specialized domains (e.g., "Consortium", "Network") not in default list
✅ Use strict mode for documents with many false positives (e.g., medical texts mentioning "hospitals" frequently)
✅ Check institutional abbreviations which may not be caught by full-name patterns (e.g., "JHU" for Johns Hopkins)
✅ Verify geographical references as some may indirectly reveal institutions (e.g., "Silicon Valley campus")

Common Issues and Solutions:

Issue: Generic words flagged as institutions

Symptom: "Research group" or "technical institute" in generic contexts are replaced
Solution: Enable strict mode or add negative context patterns to exclude generic usage

Issue: Multi-campus institutions not fully masked

Symptom: "University of California, Berkeley" partially masked as "[INSTITUTION], Berkeley"
Solution: Pre-process to combine multi-part institutional names before sanitization

3. Acknowledgment Section Management

Intelligently identify and handle acknowledgment sections, funding disclosures, and personal thanks that may reveal author identity or institutional affiliations.

python

from scripts.main import BlindReviewSanitizer

# Initialize without keeping acknowledgments
sanitizer = BlindReviewSanitizer(keep_acknowledgments=False)

# Sample acknowledgment section
acknowledgment_text = """Acknowledgments

We thank Professor Johnson for valuable discussions and the NSF Grant #12345 for funding.
This work was conducted at the Advanced Computing Center.

References"""

lines = acknowledgment_text.split('\n')
processed_lines = sanitizer.remove_acknowledgments(lines)

print('\n'.join(processed_lines))
# Output: [ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REMOVED] followed by References section

Parameters:

Parameter	Type	Required	Description	Default
`keep_acknowledgments`	bool	No	Retain acknowledgment section instead of removing	False
`acknowledgment_titles`	List[str]	No	Custom section titles to recognize	Predefined list

Best Practices:

✅ Remove acknowledgments by default for strict double-blind review requirements
✅ Check funding disclosure requirements - some journals require anonymized funding info in acknowledgments
✅ Use custom titles for non-English manuscripts or specialized formats
✅ Review anonymized funding numbers - grant numbers sometimes contain institutional codes

Common Issues and Solutions:

Issue: Acknowledgment section not detected

Symptom: Acknowledgments section with non-standard title (e.g., "Gratitude", "Credits") remains in document
Solution: Add custom acknowledgment titles or manually review document structure

Issue: Essential content in acknowledgment section

Symptom: Data availability statements or ethical approvals mentioned in acknowledgments are removed
Solution: Move essential content to appropriate sections before sanitization; use keep_acknowledgments with manual redaction

4. Self-Citation Detection and Neutralization

Identify excessive self-citations and first-person references to previous work that could deanonymize the submission, replacing them with neutral language.

python

from scripts.main import BlindReviewSanitizer

# Mode 1: Replace self-citations
sanitizer_replace = BlindReviewSanitizer(highlight_self_cites=False)

text_with_self_cites = """
As we showed in our previous work [1], the algorithm achieves 95% accuracy.
Our earlier study demonstrated similar findings [2].
In our prior research, we found that...
"""

result = sanitizer_replace.sanitize_text(text_with_self_cites)
print(result)
# Output: As [PREVIOUS WORK] described in their previous study [1]...

# Mode 2: Highlight only (for manual review)
sanitizer_highlight = BlindReviewSanitizer(highlight_self_cites=True)
result_highlighted = sanitizer_highlight.sanitize_text(text_with_self_cites)
print(result_highlighted)
# Output: As [SELF-CITE: we showed in our previous work] [1]...

Parameters:

Parameter	Type	Required	Description	Default
`highlight_self_cites`	bool	No	Only highlight self-citations without replacing	False
`neutral_replacements`	Dict[str, str]	No	Custom replacement phrases	Default mappings

Best Practices:

✅ Use highlight mode first to review all self-citations before final replacement
✅ Maintain citation integrity - ensure numbered references remain valid after text changes
✅ Check context carefully - some self-references may be essential for narrative flow
✅ Balance anonymity with scholarship - excessive neutralization may make the paper less clear

Common Issues and Solutions:

Issue: Legitimate references flagged as self-citations

Symptom: General references to "our approach" or "our method" in methodology sections are flagged
Solution: Review highlighted instances manually; adjust context to use passive voice before sanitization

Issue: Citations broken after text replacement

Symptom: "As we showed [1]" becomes "As [PREVIOUS WORK] showed [1]" but reference [1] is the author's paper
Solution: This is expected behavior - reviewers should not see author self-citations; citations will be restored post-review

5. Multi-Format Document Processing

Process manuscripts in DOCX, Markdown, and plain text formats with format-aware handling to preserve structure while sanitizing content.

python

from pathlib import Path
from scripts.main import BlindReviewSanitizer, get_processor

# Initialize sanitizer
sanitizer = BlindReviewSanitizer(authors=["Dr. Smith", "Prof. Jones"])

# Process different file formats
input_files = [
    Path("paper.docx"),
    Path("manuscript.md"),
    Path("article.txt")
]

for input_file in input_files:
    if input_file.exists():
        processor = get_processor(input_file, sanitizer)
        output_file = input_file.parent / f"{input_file.stem}-blinded{input_file.suffix}"
        processor.process(input_file, output_file)
        print(f"Processed: {input_file} → {output_file}")

Supported Formats:

Format	Extension	Features Preserved	Special Handling
Microsoft Word	.docx	Styles, tables, formatting	python-docx library required
Markdown	.md	Headers, lists, links	Line-based processing
Plain Text	.txt	Line breaks, spacing	Line-based processing

Best Practices:

✅ Prefer DOCX for complex documents with tables and formatting; preserves structure best
✅ Use Markdown for version-controlled manuscripts (e.g., Git-tracked LaTeX alternatives)
✅ Validate output formatting especially for complex tables and mathematical content
✅ Check figure/table captions which may contain author information in DOCX files

Common Issues and Solutions:

Issue: DOCX formatting lost after processing

Symptom: Complex formatting, styles, or tracked changes are stripped
Solution: Accept all changes and remove comments before sanitization; save as clean document first

Issue: Unicode/UTF-8 characters corrupted in text files

Symptom: Special characters (accents, mathematical symbols) display incorrectly
Solution: Ensure files are UTF-8 encoded; specify encoding explicitly if needed

6. Audit Trail and Verification Reporting

Generate comprehensive logs of all sanitization actions for transparency, quality assurance, and compliance verification.

python

from scripts.main import BlindReviewSanitizer

sanitizer = BlindReviewSanitizer(
    authors=["Alice Chen", "Bob Smith"]
)

# Process document
text = """Alice Chen and Bob Smith from MIT present their findings.
Contact: alice@mit.edu"""

sanitized = sanitizer.sanitize_text(text)

# Review audit trail
print("=== Audit Trail ===")
for item in sanitizer.removed_items:
    print(f"- {item}")

# Output shows:
# - Institution: MIT
# - Email: alice@mit.edu

Audit Information Captured:

Information Type	Description	Use Case
`author_names`	List of author names redacted	Verification, re-identification post-review
`institutions`	Institutional affiliations masked	Compliance checking
`contact_info`	Emails and phone numbers removed	Privacy verification
`acknowledgments`	Whether acknowledgment section was removed	Journal requirement verification
`self_citations`	Count and type of self-citations neutralized	Review bias prevention

Best Practices:

✅ Save audit logs for compliance verification and post-review re-identification
✅ Review audit trail before submission to ensure nothing was missed
✅ Use logs for quality improvement - identify patterns in missed redactions
✅ Share logs with co-authors for multi-author verification

Common Issues and Solutions:

Issue: Audit log too verbose

Symptom: Every instance of common words (e.g., "University") is logged separately
Solution: Use summary mode for large documents; filter by category for review

Issue: Sensitive information in audit logs

Symptom: Audit logs themselves contain the sensitive data that was removed
Solution: Store logs securely; consider encrypting or limiting access to audit data

Complete Workflow Example

From input to output for double-blind journal submission:

bash

# Step 1: Prepare input manuscript
cp my_paper.docx manuscript.docx

# Step 2: Run sanitization with explicit author list
python scripts/main.py \
  --input manuscript.docx \
  --authors "Zhang San,Li Si,Wang Wu" \
  --output manuscript-blinded.docx

# Step 3: Review highlighted self-citations (optional but recommended)
python scripts/main.py \
  --input manuscript-blinded.docx \
  --highlight-self-cites \
  --output manuscript-reviewed.docx

# Step 4: Verify audit trail
cat sanitization_report.txt

# Step 5: Final check for remaining identifiers
grep -i "zhang\|tsinghua\|peking" manuscript-blinded.docx || echo "No matches found - good!"

Python API Usage:

python

from pathlib import Path
from scripts.main import BlindReviewSanitizer, get_processor

def sanitize_for_submission(
    input_path: Path,
    authors: list[str],
    output_dir: Path
) -> Path:
    """
    Complete sanitization workflow for journal submission.
    """
    # Initialize sanitizer with strict settings
    sanitizer = BlindReviewSanitizer(
        authors=authors,
        keep_acknowledgments=False,
        highlight_self_cites=False
    )
    
    # Determine output path
    output_path = output_dir / f"{input_path.stem}-blinded{input_file.suffix}"
    
    # Get appropriate processor
    processor = get_processor(input_path, sanitizer)
    
    # Process document
    processor.process(input_path, output_path)
    
    # Log results
    print(f"Sanitization complete:")
    print(f"  Input: {input_path}")
    print(f"  Output: {output_path}")
    print(f"  Items redacted: {len(sanitizer.removed_items)}")
    
    # Generate summary by category
    categories = {}
    for item in sanitizer.removed_items:
        category = item.split(":")[0]
        categories[category] = categories.get(category, 0) + 1
    
    print("  Breakdown:")
    for cat, count in categories.items():
        print(f"    - {cat}: {count}")
    
    return output_path

# Execute workflow
authors = ["Zhang San", "Li Si", "Wang Wu"]
output = sanitize_for_submission(
    Path("paper.docx"),
    authors,
    Path("./submissions/")
)

Expected Output Files:

text

submissions/
├── manuscript-blinded.docx    # Anonymized manuscript
├── sanitization_report.txt    # Audit trail of all redactions
└── verification_checklist.md  # Pre-submission verification

Common Patterns

Pattern 1: Standard Double-Blind Journal Submission

Scenario: Preparing a research paper for submission to Nature, Science, or IEEE Transactions with strict double-blind review.

json

{
  "input_file": "neural_network_study.docx",
  "authors": ["Alice Chen", "Bob Smith", "Carol Wang"],
  "keep_acknowledgments": false,
  "highlight_self_cites": false,
  "expected_processing": [
    "Remove all author names from title page",
    "Replace institutional affiliations with [INSTITUTION]",
    "Remove complete acknowledgment section",
    "Neutralize all self-citations",
    "Remove email addresses and ORCID IDs"
  ]
}

Workflow:

Run sanitization with full author list and strict settings
Manually verify title page, headers, and footers
Check supplementary materials for author metadata
Submit blinded version with separate cover letter

Output Example:

text

Original: Alice Chen¹, Bob Smith²
          ¹MIT CSAIL, ²Stanford AI Lab
          Email: achen@mit.edu

Sanitized: [AUTHOR NAME]¹, [AUTHOR NAME]²
           ¹[INSTITUTION], ²[INSTITUTION]
           [EMAIL]

Pattern 2: Conference Submission with Anonymization Period

Scenario: Submitting to computer science conference (e.g., ICML, NeurIPS) that requires anonymization during review but allows deanonymization after acceptance.

json

{
  "input_file": "deep_learning_paper.pdf",
  "authors": ["Anonymous"],
  "keep_acknowledgments": true,
  "highlight_self_cites": true,
  "special_requirements": [
    "Preserve citations to arXiv preprints",
    "Keep URLs and repository links",
    "Anonymize GitHub repositories"
  ]
}

Workflow:

Use highlight mode to identify all potential identity leaks
Review highlighted sections manually
Replace GitHub URLs with anonymous placeholder
Keep general acknowledgments but remove personal thanks
Create separate deanonymization key for post-acceptance

Output Example:

text

Original: Our implementation is available at 
          github.com/alicechen/bert-optimizer

Sanitized: Our implementation is available at
           [ANONYMOUS_REPOSITORY] 
           (link will be provided upon acceptance)

Pattern 3: Medical Journal with Funding Disclosure Requirements

Scenario: Submitting to medical journal requiring funding disclosure but author anonymity during review.

json

{
  "input_file": "clinical_trial_results.docx",
  "authors": ["Dr. Sarah Johnson", "Prof. Michael Lee"],
  "keep_acknowledgments": true,
  "special_handling": [
    "Anonymize investigator names in acknowledgments",
    "Keep funding sources with neutral language",
    "Remove institutional affiliations",
    "Preserve ethics committee information"
  ]
}

Workflow:

Keep acknowledgments section but redact investigator names
Retain funding information with anonymized grant numbers
Remove all institutional identifiers
Maintain IRB/ethics committee references
Add note about funding disclosure availability

Output Example:

text

Original: We thank Dr. Sarah Johnson and the Clinical Research 
          Team at Mayo Clinic. Funded by NIH R01CA12345.

Sanitized: We thank [INVESTIGATOR] and the Clinical Research
          Team at [INSTITUTION]. Funded by [FUNDING_SOURCE].

Pattern 4: Resubmission After Previous Rejection

Scenario: Revising and resubmitting a previously rejected manuscript to a new journal, requiring fresh anonymization.

json

{
  "input_file": "revised_paper.docx",
  "authors": ["Original Author", "New Collaborator"],
  "updated_metadata": {
    "added_authors": ["New Collaborator"],
    "removed_content": ["previous_institutional_mention"],
    "new_acknowledgments": ["new_funding_source"]
  },
  "verification_steps": [
    "Check for editor response letter remnants",
    "Remove previous submission tracking numbers",
    "Update all institutional references",
    "Verify no reviewer comments remain"
  ]
}

Workflow:

Create clean copy without previous submission metadata
Update author list to include new collaborators
Remove all references to previous submission or reviews
Sanitize with updated author information
Verify no "response to reviewers" content remains in main text

Output Example:

text

Before: "We have revised the manuscript based on Nature 
          Medicine reviewer comments..."

After: Complete removal of all previous submission references

Quality Checklist

Pre-sanitization Checks:

CRITICAL: Verify you have permission to anonymize all authors' contributions
Confirm target journal/conference anonymization requirements
Compile complete list of all author names and name variants
Identify all institutional affiliations including secondary appointments
Check for author photos or bios in supplementary materials
Review document properties/metadata for author information
Verify no tracked changes or comments contain author identity

During Sanitization:

Run initial scan with highlight mode to preview all changes
Verify author list is complete (check initials, surnames, full names)
Confirm acknowledgment handling matches journal policy
Check self-citation replacement maintains citation flow
Review institution masking in complex affiliations
Validate contact information removal (emails, phone, addresses)
Ensure figure captions and table notes are processed

Post-sanitization Verification:

CRITICAL: Search for author surnames in output document
Check headers, footers, and page numbers for institutional branding
Verify document properties are cleared (File → Properties → Remove Personal Information)
Review all figures for embedded author metadata or watermarks
Check PDF metadata if converting to PDF for submission
Validate that citations remain properly numbered after text changes
Ensure mathematical notation and symbols preserved correctly

Before Submission:

CRITICAL: Have a non-author colleague verify anonymity
Confirm acknowledgments handling meets journal ethical guidelines
Check that funding disclosure requirements are met
Verify supplementary materials are also sanitized
Test submission system upload with sanitized file
Create deanonymization key mapping for post-acceptance
Save audit trail securely for potential post-review verification

Common Pitfalls

Input Preparation Issues:

❌ Processing tracked changes without accepting → Hidden revision marks reveal author identity
- ✅ Accept all changes and remove comments before sanitization
❌ Ignoring document metadata → File properties contain author name and institution
- ✅ Clear document properties: File → Info → Check for Issues → Inspect Document
❌ Forgetting supplementary materials → Author info in supplementary PDFs not sanitized
- ✅ Process all supplementary files through sanitizer with same settings
❌ Incomplete author lists → Co-author names appear in text unrecognized
- ✅ Include all authors, middle names, and common name variants

Sanitization Strategy Issues:

❌ Over-aggressive replacement → Legitimate citations and references damaged
- ✅ Use highlight mode first; review each replacement context
❌ Under-sanitization → Subtle identifiers remain (e.g., "our previous work")
- ✅ Enable all detection modules; manually review after automated processing
❌ Inconsistent handling → Some instances replaced, others missed
- ✅ Use case-insensitive matching; verify regex patterns cover all variants
❌ Context-insensitive replacement → "University research" becomes "[INSTITUTION] research"
- ✅ Review outputs carefully; consider strict mode for ambiguous terms

Output Validation Issues:

❌ Assuming perfect automation → Automated tools miss edge cases
- ✅ Always perform manual verification pass
❌ Submitting without verification → Undetected author info reaches reviewers
- ✅ Use search function to look for author surnames before submission
❌ Losing audit trail → No record of what was changed for post-review
- ✅ Save and securely store sanitization reports
❌ Forgetting downstream effects → Citations broken, cross-references lost
- ✅ Verify document integrity after sanitization

Troubleshooting

Problem: Author names still appear in output

Symptoms: Specific author names visible after sanitization
Causes:
- Author name not in provided list
- Different spelling or name variant used
- Name embedded in image/figure (not text)
- Name in document metadata, not body text
Solutions:
- Add all name variants to authors list
- Search for partial matches (surnames only)
- Check document properties and clear metadata
- Manually review figures and images

Problem: Excessive false positives

Symptoms: Common words like "University" or "Center" replaced throughout document
Causes:
- Overly broad pattern matching
- Generic terms in specialized vocabulary
- Institution keywords used in non-institutional contexts
Solutions:
- Enable strict mode for more precise matching
- Add context requirements (e.g., must be capitalized)
- Use explicit author/institution lists instead of pattern matching
- Post-process to restore legitimate usage

Problem: Document formatting corrupted

Symptoms: Styles lost, fonts changed, layout broken after DOCX processing
Causes:
- Complex formatting not supported by python-docx
- Tracked changes or comments interfering
- Corrupted original document
Solutions:
- Accept all changes and remove comments before processing
- Save document in compatibility mode if using advanced features
- Use plain text or Markdown for highly formatted documents
- Manually verify and correct formatting post-processing

Problem: Self-citations not detected

Symptoms: First-person references to previous work remain in text
Causes:
- Non-standard phrasing not matching patterns
- Citations in different format (e.g., "our Nature 2020 paper")
- Citations in footnotes not processed
Solutions:
- Add custom patterns for specific phrasing
- Use highlight mode to identify missed citations
- Check all document sections including footnotes/endnotes
- Manually review for unique self-reference formulations

Problem: Acknowledgment section not removed

Symptoms: Acknowledgments section remains in output
Causes:
- Non-standard section title
- Section formatted as body text, not heading
- Acknowledgments integrated into other sections
Solutions:
- Add custom acknowledgment titles for your document style
- Manually identify and mark acknowledgment boundaries
- Use section-based processing if document has clear structure
- Review document outline to identify acknowledgment location

Problem: References/citations broken

Symptoms: Citation numbers wrong, references missing, cross-references broken
Causes:
- Text replacement affecting citation indices
- Reference list entries removed that are still cited
- Self-citation replacement removing reference context
Solutions:
- Use neutral replacement that preserves citation markers
- Verify reference list integrity after processing
- Consider citations as protected text
- Manually correct citation numbering if needed

Problem: python-docx import error

Symptoms: "Error: python-docx not installed" when processing DOCX files
Causes:
- Required dependency not installed
- Virtual environment not activated
Solutions:
- Install dependency: pip install python-docx
- Check Python environment and activate if needed
- Consider using text-based formats if dependencies unavailable
- Verify pip and Python installation

References

Available in references/ directory:

(No reference files currently available for this skill)

External Resources:

COPE Guidelines for Peer Review: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines
IEEE Anonymization Guidelines: https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html
ACM Policy on Authorship: https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/authorship

Scripts

Located in scripts/ directory:

main.py - Main sanitization engine with document processing logic

Limitations and Considerations

⚠️ Important Limitations:

Not Foolproof: Automated sanitization cannot guarantee complete anonymity. Always perform manual verification.
Context Blindness: Pattern matching may miss context-dependent identifiers or incorrectly flag legitimate content.
Image Processing: This tool processes text only. Images, figures, and embedded objects may contain identifying information not detected.
LaTeX Support: Limited support for LaTeX source files. Consider using LaTeX-specific tools for LaTeX manuscripts.
Language Support: Optimized for English and Chinese. Other languages may have reduced accuracy.

⚠️ Ethical and Legal Considerations:

Author Consent: Ensure all authors consent to anonymization before submission
Copyright: Anonymization does not change copyright ownership
Data Availability: Some journals require non-anonymized versions for data/code availability statements
Post-Acceptance: Plan for deanonymization process after paper acceptance

Last Updated: 2026-02-09
Skill ID: 162
Version: 2.0 (K-Dense Standard)

Blind Review Sanitizer

Install

Blind Review Sanitizer

Parameters

When to Use

Integration with Other Skills

Core Capabilities

1. Author Identity Detection and Removal

2. Institutional Affiliation Masking

3. Acknowledgment Section Management

4. Self-Citation Detection and Neutralization

5. Multi-Format Document Processing

6. Audit Trail and Verification Reporting

Complete Workflow Example

Common Patterns

Pattern 1: Standard Double-Blind Journal Submission

Pattern 2: Conference Submission with Anonymization Period

Pattern 3: Medical Journal with Funding Disclosure Requirements

Pattern 4: Resubmission After Previous Rejection

Quality Checklist

Common Pitfalls

Troubleshooting

References

Scripts

Limitations and Considerations

Related skills