Related papers: Single versus Double Blind Reviewing at WSDM 2017

Quantitative research relies heavily on coding, and coding errors are relatively common even in published research. In this paper, we examine whether individuals are more or less likely to check their code depending on the results they…

Gender disparities appear to be decreasing in academia according to a number of metrics, such as grant funding, hiring, acceptance at scholarly journals, and productivity, and it might be tempting to think that gender inequity will soon be…

Many scientific conferences employ a two-phase paper review process, where some papers are assigned additional reviewers after the initial reviews are submitted. Many conferences also design and run experiments on their paper review…

Gender bias in grant allocation is a deviation from the principle that scientific merit should guide grant decisions. However, most studies on gender bias in grant allocation focus on gender differences in success rates, without including…

Despite the tremendous successes of science in providing knowledge and technologies, the Replication Crisis has highlighted that scientific institutions have much room for improvement. Peer-review is one target of criticism and suggested…

Automated reviewer recommendation for scientific conferences currently relies on the assumption that the program committee has the necessary expertise to handle all submissions. However, topical discrepancies between received submissions…

Gender discrimination in the hiring process is one significant factor contributing to labor market disparities. However, there is little evidence on the extent to which gender bias by hiring managers is responsible for these disparities. In…

Traditional closed peer review systems, which have played a central role in scientific publishing, are often slow, costly, non-transparent, stochastic, and possibly subject to biases - factors that can impede scientific progress and…

Despite frequent double-blind review, demographic biases of authors still disadvantage the underrepresented groups. We present Fair-PaperRec, a MultiLayer Perceptron (MLP)-based model that addresses demographic disparities in post-review…

Studies conducted on Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) samples are considered atypical of the world's population and may not accurately represent human behavior. In this study, we aim to quantify the extent to…

This study examines whether there is any evidence of bias in two areas of common critique of open, non-anonymous peer review - and used in the post-publication, peer review system operated by the open-access scholarly publishing platform…

The principle of peer review is central to the evaluation of research, by ensuring that only high-quality items are funded or published. But peer review has also received criticism, as the selection of reviewers may introduce biases in the…

Large language models (LLMs) are playing an increasingly integral, though largely informal, role in scholarly peer review. Yet it remains unclear whether LLMs reproduce the biases observed in human decision-making. We adapt a resume-style…

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications and this database reveals the disturbing trend in science~\citep{fang2012misconduct, brainard2018massive}. The objective of the study is to find the association among…

Assigning qualified, unbiased and interested reviewers to paper submissions is vital for maintaining the integrity and quality of the academic publishing system and providing valuable reviews to authors. However, matching thousands of…

The world's collective knowledge is evolving through research and new scientific discoveries. It is becoming increasingly difficult to objectively rank the impact research institutes have on global advancements. However, since the funding,…

Scientific attention is unevenly distributed, creating inequities in recognition and distorting access to opportunities. Using citations as a proxy, we quantify disparities in attention by gender and institutional prestige. We find that…

In the peer review process of top-tier machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) conferences, reviewers are assigned to papers through automated methods. These assignment algorithms consider two main factors: (1) reviewers'…

To this date, the efficacy of the scientific publishing enterprise fundamentally rests on the strength of the peer review process. The journal editor or the conference chair primarily relies on the expert reviewers' assessment, identify…

The aim of this paper is twofold:1)contribute to a better understanding of the place of women in Economics and Management disciplines by characterizing the difference in levels of scientific collaboration between men and women at the…