相关论文: Into the Unknown: Assigning Reviewers to Papers wi…

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,…

At the heart of many scientific conferences is the problem of matching submitted papers to suitable reviewers. Arriving at a good assignment is a major and important challenge for any conference organizer. In this paper we propose a…

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…

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 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…

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…

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…

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)…

Peer assessment has established itself as a critical pedagogical tool in academic settings, offering students timely, high-quality feedback to enhance learning outcomes. However, the efficacy of this approach depends on two factors: (1) the…

In conference peer review, reviewers are often asked to provide "bids" on each submitted paper that express their interest in reviewing that paper. A paper assignment algorithm then uses these bids (along with other data) to compute a…

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…

Peer review assignment algorithms aim to match research papers to suitable expert reviewers, working to maximize the quality of the resulting reviews. A key challenge in designing effective assignment policies is evaluating how changes to…

In peer review, reviewers are usually asked to provide scores for the papers. The scores are then used by Area Chairs or Program Chairs in various ways in the decision-making process. The scores are usually elicited in a quantized form to…

Most computer science conferences rely on paper bidding to assign reviewers to papers. Although paper bidding enables high-quality assignments in days of unprecedented submission numbers, it also opens the door for dishonest reviewers to…

In the peer selection problem a group of agents must select a subset of themselves as winners for, e.g., peer-reviewed grants or prizes. Here, we take a Condorcet view of this aggregation problem, i.e., that there is a ground-truth ordering…

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…

Many peer-review venues are using algorithms to assign submissions to reviewers. The crux of such automated approaches is the notion of the "similarity score" -- a numerical estimate of the expertise of a reviewer in reviewing a paper --…

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…

We propose an enhanced peer-review process where the reviewers are encouraged to truthfully disclose their reviews. We start by modelling that process using a Bayesian model where the uncertainty regarding the quality of the manuscript is…

Fair predictive algorithms hinge on both equality and trust, yet inherent uncertainty in real-world data challenges our ability to make consistent, fair, and calibrated decisions. While fairly managing predictive error has been extensively…