A Novice-Reviewer Experiment to Address Scarcity of Qualified Reviewers in Large Conferences
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 some ideas and restraining others. A surge in the number of submissions received by leading AI conferences has challenged the sustainability of the review process by increasing the burden on the pool of qualified reviewers which is growing at a much slower rate. In this work, we consider the problem of reviewer recruiting with a focus on the scarcity of qualified reviewers in large conferences. Specifically, we design a procedure for (i) recruiting reviewers from the population not typically covered by major conferences and (ii) guiding them through the reviewing pipeline. In conjunction with ICML 2020 -- a large, top-tier machine learning conference -- we recruit a small set of reviewers through our procedure and compare their performance with the general population of ICML reviewers. Our experiment reveals that a combination of the recruiting and guiding mechanisms allows for a principled enhancement of the reviewer pool and results in reviews of superior quality compared to the conventional pool of reviews as evaluated by senior members of the program committee (meta-reviewers).
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Prior and Prejudice: The Novice Reviewers' Bias against Resubmissions in Conference Peer Review
Modern machine learning and computer science conferences are experiencing a surge in the number of submissions that challenges the quality of peer review as the number of competent reviewers is growing at a much slower r…
BIG-bench Machine LearningUsing Large-scale Heterogeneous Graph Representation Learning for Code Review Recommendations at Microsoft
Code review is an integral part of any mature software development process, and identifying the best reviewer for a code change is a well-accepted problem within the software engineering community. Selecting a reviewer w…
Graph Representation LearningManagementRecommendation SystemsRepresentation LearningChain-of-Factors Paper-Reviewer Matching
With the rapid increase in paper submissions to academic conferences, the need for automated and accurate paper-reviewer matching is more critical than ever. Previous efforts in this area have considered various factors …
Information RetrievalLanguage ModellingRetrievalSemantic Similarity+1Is Peer-Reviewing Worth the Effort?
How effective is peer-reviewing in identifying important papers? We treat this question as a forecasting task. Can we predict which papers will be highly cited in the future based on venue and "early returns" (citations …
Combating Collusion Rings is Hard but Possible
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 re…