Related papers: Diverse Reviewer Suggestion for Extending Conferen…
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…
A large host of scientific journals and conferences solicit peer reviews from multiple reviewers for the same submission, aiming to gather a broader range of perspectives and mitigate individual biases. In this work, we reflect on the role…
We consider the problem of automated assignment of papers to reviewers in conference peer review, with a focus on fairness and statistical accuracy. Our fairness objective is to maximize the review quality of the most disadvantaged paper,…
Everyday, a vast stream of research documents is submitted to conferences, anthologies, journals, newsletters, annual reports, daily papers, and various periodicals. Many such publications use independent external specialists to review…
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…
Conference paper assignment, i.e., the task of assigning paper submissions to reviewers, presents multi-faceted issues for recommender systems research. Besides the traditional goal of predicting `who likes what?', a conference management…
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…
The number of papers submitted to academic conferences is steadily rising in many scientific disciplines. To handle this growth, systems for automatic paper-reviewer assignments are increasingly used during the reviewing process. These…
The peer-review process is the most widely accepted certification mechanism for officially accepting the written results of researchers within the scientific community. An essential component of peer-review is the identification of…
The assignment of papers to reviewers is a crucial part of the peer review processes of large publication venues, where organizers (e.g., conference program chairs) rely on algorithms to perform automated paper assignment. As such, a major…
Scientific publishing heavily relies on the assessment of quality of submitted manuscripts by peer reviewers. Assigning a set of matching reviewers to a submission is a highly complex task which can be performed only by domain experts. We…
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…
Appropriate reviewer assignment significantly impacts the quality of proposal evaluation, as accurate and fair reviews are contingent on their assignment to relevant reviewers. The crucial task of assigning reviewers to submitted proposals…
Many contemporary research funding instruments and research policies aim for excellence at the level of individual scientists, teams or research programmes. Good bibliometric approximations of related specialties could be useful for…
The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into recommender systems has led to substantial performance improvements. However, this often comes at the cost of diminished recommendation diversity, which can negatively impact user…
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…
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…
Is it possible to reliably evaluate the quality of peer reviews? We study this question driven by two primary motivations -- incentivizing high-quality reviewing using assessed quality of reviews and measuring changes to review quality in…
With the rapid development of recommender systems, accuracy is no longer the only golden criterion for evaluating whether the recommendation results are satisfying or not. In recent years, diversity has gained tremendous attention in…
The increasing volume of scientific publications and grant proposals has generated an unprecedentedly high workload to scientific communities. Consequently, review quality has been decreasing and review outcomes have become less correlated…