Related papers: When Reviewers Lock Horn: Finding Disagreement in …
Peer review aims to detect flaws and deficiencies in the design and interpretation of studies, and ensure the clarity and quality of their presentation. However, it has been questioned whether peer review fulfils this function. Studies have…
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…
Writing a scientific article is a challenging task as it is a highly codified and specific genre, consequently proficiency in written communication is essential for effectively conveying research findings and ideas. In this article, we…
Peer review is a cornerstone of quality control in scientific publishing. With the increasing workload, the unintended use of `quick' heuristics, referred to as lazy thinking, has emerged as a recurring issue compromising review quality.…
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, including at premier machine learning conferences such as ICLR. As submission volumes increase, understanding the nature and dynamics of the review process is crucial for improving its…
Reviewer recommendation is a critical task for enhancing the efficiency of academic publishing workflows. However, research in this area has been persistently hindered by the lack of high-quality benchmark datasets, which are often limited…
For many years, achievements and discoveries made by scientists are made aware through research papers published in appropriate journals or conferences. Often, established scientists and especially newbies are caught up in the dilemma of…
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…
We consider three important challenges in conference peer review: (i) reviewers maliciously attempting to get assigned to certain papers to provide positive reviews, possibly as part of quid-pro-quo arrangements with the authors; (ii)…
The rapid growth of AI conferences is straining an already fragile peer-review system, leading to heavy reviewer workloads, expertise mismatches, inconsistent evaluation standards, superficial or templated reviews, and limited…
In computer science, conferences and journals conduct peer review in order to decide what to publish. Many have pointed out the inherent weaknesses in peer review, including those of bias, quality, and accountability. Many have suggested…
The paper describes a potential platform to facilitate academic peer review with emphasis on early-stage research. This platform aims to make peer review more accurate and timely by rewarding reviewers on the basis of peer prediction…
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'…
Conference publications in computer science (CS) have attracted scholarly attention due to their unique status as a main research outlet unlike other science fields where journals are dominantly used for communicating research findings. One…
Citations play an important role in researchers' careers as a key factor in evaluation of scientific impact. Many anecdotes advice authors to exploit this fact and cite prospective reviewers to try obtaining a more positive evaluation for…
In this paper, we focus on online reviews and employ artificial intelligence tools, taken from the cognitive computing field, to help understanding the relationships between the textual part of the review and the assigned numerical score.…
Peer review frequently follows a process where reviewers first provide initial reviews, authors respond to these reviews, then reviewers update their reviews based on the authors' response. There is mixed evidence regarding whether this…
The peer review process for scientific publications faces significant challenges due to the increasing volume of submissions and inherent reviewer biases. While artificial intelligence offers the potential to facilitate the process, it also…
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…
One way of evaluating individual scientists is the determination of the number of highly cited publications, where the threshold is given by a large reference set. It is shown that this indicator behaves in a counterintuitive way, leading…