Related papers: Peer Review: Objectivity, Anonymity, Trust
Peer review is a cornerstone of science. Research communities conduct peer reviews to assess contributions and to improve the overall quality of science work. Every year, new community members are recruited as peer reviewers for the first…
Nowadays, protecting trust in social sciences also means engaging in open community dialogue, which helps to safeguard robustness and improve efficiency of research methods. The combination of open data, open review and open dialogue may…
Scientific evaluation is a determinant of how scientists, institutions and funders behave, and as such is a key element in the making of science. In this article, we propose an alternative to the current norm of evaluating research with…
Subjectivity is the expression of internal opinions or beliefs which cannot be objectively observed or verified, and has been shown to be important for sentiment analysis and word-sense disambiguation. Furthermore, subjectivity is an…
Across scholarly communities, manuscripts face similar evaluative rituals: editors invite experts to privately assess submissions through formal peer reviews. This closed, loosely structured, and publisher-mediated process is now being…
Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing, yet it suffers from inconsistencies, reviewer subjectivity, and scalability challenges. We introduce ReviewerToo, a modular framework for studying and deploying AI-assisted peer…
Privacy is one of the key challenges to the adoption and implementation of online proctoring systems in higher education. To better understand this challenge, we adopt privacy as contextual integrity theory to conduct a scoping review of 17…
Our social interactions mainly depend on the social phenomenon called trust. We evaluate our trust in our peer to decide whether to start an interaction or not. When our information about the peer is not sufficient, we use the knowledge of…
Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifiable is crucial for…
Since a number of journals specifically focus on the review and publication of data sets, reviewing their policies seems an appropriate place to start in assessing what existing practice looks like in the 'real world' of reviewing and…
A major impediment to research on improving peer review is the unavailability of peer-review data, since any release of such data must grapple with the sensitivity of the peer review data in terms of protecting identities of reviewers from…
Peer-review plays a critical role in the scientific writing and publication ecosystem. To assess the efficiency and efficacy of the reviewing process, one essential element is to understand and evaluate the reviews themselves. In this work,…
Context: Pre-publication peer review of scientific articles is considered a key element of the research process in software engineering, yet it is often perceived as not to work fully well. Objective: We aim at understanding the perceptions…
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…
Peer reviewing is a central process in modern research and essential for ensuring high quality and reliability of published work. At the same time, it is a time-consuming process and increasing interest in emerging fields often results in a…
This paper examines performance evaluation criteria for basic vision tasks involving sets of objects namely, object detection, instance-level segmentation and multi-object tracking. The rankings of algorithms by an existing criterion can…
Peer review remains the central quality-control mechanism of science, yet its ability to fulfill this role is increasingly strained. Empirical studies document serious shortcomings: long publication delays, escalating reviewer burden…
Open and anonymous nature of peer to peer networks provides an opportunity to malicious peers to behave unpredictably in the network. This leads the lack of trust among the peers. To control the behavior of peers in the network, reputation…
Large language models are increasingly discussed and used as tools that may assist with scholarly peer review, but empirical evidence regarding how authors use and perceive AI-based feedback remains limited. This paper reports findings from…
This paper proposes a belief-based framework for social norms in environments where individuals choose a single action. Relaxing the assumption that the appropriateness standard is common knowledge, the framework allows individuals to be…