Related papers: Hidden Actions and Hidden Information in Peer Revi…
When eliciting opinions from a group of experts, traditional devices used to promote honest reporting assume that there is an observable future outcome. In practice, however, this assumption is not always reasonable. In this paper, we…
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…
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 selection process of proposals is a crucial component of scientific progress and innovations. Limited resources must be allocated in the most effective way to maximise advancements and the production of new knowledge, especially as it…
Peer-review venues have increasingly adopted open reviewing policies that publicly release anonymized reviews and permit public commenting. Venues have adopted a variety of policies, and there is still ongoing debate about the benefits and…
Peer review, as a widely used practice to ensure the quality and integrity of publications, lacks a well-defined and common mechanism to self-incentivize virtuous behavior across all the conferences and journals. This is because information…
While ancient scientists often had patrons to fund their work, peer review of proposals for the allocation of resources is a foundation of modern science. A very common method is that proposals are evaluated by a small panel of experts (due…
An increasing number of scientific publications are created in open and transparent peer review models: a submission is published first, and then reviewers are invited, or a submission is reviewed in a closed environment but then these…
Information systems experience an ever-growing volume of unstructured data, particularly in the form of textual materials. This represents a rich source of information from which one can create value for people, organizations and…
The HCI community commonly evaluates decision support systems based on whether they improve task performance or promote appropriate user reliance. In this work, we look beyond decision outcomes to examine the process through which users…
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…
We study dynamic screening problems where elements are subjected to noisy evaluations and, in every stage, some of the elements are rejected while the remaining ones are independently re-evaluated in subsequent stages. We prove that,…
This study was motivated by the problem of identifying fake documents on the Internet. To explore possible solutions to this problem we introduce a model of a network community in which members submit documents with verifiable content.…
The publication process both determines which research receives the most attention, and influences the supply of research through its impact on researchers' private incentives. We introduce a framework to study optimal publication decisions…
Generative AI acts as a disruptive technological shock to evaluative organizations. In academic peer review, it enters both sides of the market: authors use AI to polish submissions, and reviewers use it to generate plausible reports…
Peer grading systems make large courses more scalable, provide students with faster and more detailed feedback, and help students to learn by thinking critically about the work of others. A key obstacle to the broader adoption of peer…
Just as user preferences change with time, item reviews also reflect those same preference changes. In a nutshell, if one is to sequentially incorporate review content knowledge into recommender systems, one is naturally led to dynamical…
Literature reviews allow scientists to stand on the shoulders of giants, showing promising directions, summarizing progress, and pointing out existing challenges in research. At the same time conducting a systematic literature review is a…
Scientific peer review is essential for the quality of academic publications. However, the increasing number of paper submissions to conferences has strained the reviewing process. This surge poses a burden on area chairs who have to…
Existing norms for scientific communication are rooted in anachronistic practices of bygone eras, making them needlessly inefficient. We outline a path that moves away from the existing model of scientific communication to improve the…