Related papers: Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomi…
Peer reviews, evaluations, and selections are a fundamental aspect of modern science. Funding bodies the world over employ experts to review and select the best proposals from those submitted for funding. The problem of peer selection,…
The article focuses on the importance of the automatic assignment of reviewers to papers for increasing the assignment accuracy therefore the quality of the scientific event itself. It discusses the main aspects that influence the…
Peer-reviewed conferences, the main publication venues in CS, rely critically on matching highly qualified reviewers for each paper. Because of the growing scale of these conferences, the tight timelines on which they operate, and a recent…
The rapid growth of AI conference submissions has created an overwhelming reviewing burden. To alleviate this, recent venues such as ICLR 2026 introduced a reviewer nomination policy: each submission must nominate one of its authors as a…
Recent successes in the Machine Learning community have led to a steep increase in the number of papers submitted to conferences. This increase made more prominent some of the issues that affect the current review process used by these…
Finding the right reviewers to assess the quality of conference submissions is a time consuming process for conference organizers. Given the importance of this step, various automated reviewer-paper matching solutions have been proposed to…
We consider peer review in a conference setting where there is typically an overlap between the set of reviewers and the set of authors. This overlap can incentivize strategic reviews to influence the final ranking of one's own papers. In…
Reviewers in peer review are often miscalibrated: they may be strict, lenient, extreme, moderate, etc. A number of algorithms have previously been proposed to calibrate reviews. Such attempts of calibration can however leak sensitive…
This paper proposes an architecture and assignment management model of a conference management system that performs a precise and accurate automatic assignment of reviewers to papers. The system relies on taxonomy of keywords to describe…
Peer review is the backbone of academia and humans constitute a cornerstone of this process, being responsible for reviewing papers and making the final acceptance/rejection decisions. Given that human decision making is known to be…
Optimized reviewer assignment can effectively utilize limited intellectual resources and significantly assure review quality in various scenarios such as paper selection in conference or journal, proposal selection in funding agencies and…
The number of scientific publications is constantly rising, increasing the strain on the review process. The number of submissions is actually higher, as each manuscript is often reviewed several times before publication. To face the deluge…
Motivated by the common academic problem of allocating papers to referees for conference reviewing we propose a novel mechanism for solving the assignment problem when we have a two sided matching problem with preferences from one side (the…
Conference peer review constitutes a human-computation process whose importance cannot be overstated: not only it identifies the best submissions for acceptance, but, ultimately, it impacts the future of the whole research area by promoting…
A recent report of Littmann [Commun. ACM '21] outlines the existence and the fatal impact of collusion rings in academic peer reviewing. We introduce and analyze the problem Cycle-Free Reviewing that aims at finding a review assignment…
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…
Peer review is a widely accepted mechanism for research evaluation, playing a pivotal role in academic publishing. However, criticisms have long been leveled at this mechanism, mostly because of its poor efficiency and low reproducibility.…
The peer review process in major artificial intelligence (AI) conferences faces unprecedented challenges with the surge of paper submissions (exceeding 10,000 submissions per venue), accompanied by growing concerns over review quality and…
The conference peer review process involves three constituencies with different objectives: authors want their papers accepted at prestigious venues (and quickly), conferences want to present a program with many high-quality and few…
Both scientific progress and individual researcher careers depend on the quality of peer review, which in turn depends on paper-reviewer matching. Surprisingly, this problem has been mostly approached as an automated recommendation problem…