paper-with-me

Papers

Does My Rebuttal Matter? Insights from a Major NLP Conference

2019-03-27 · NAACL 2019 6 · Yang Gao, Steffen Eger, Ilia Kuznetsov, Iryna Gurevych, Yusuke Miyao

Peer review is a core element of the scientific process, particularly in conference-centered fields such as ML and NLP. However, only few studies have evaluated its properties empirically. Aiming to fill this gap, we present a corpus that contains over 4k reviews and 1.2k author responses from ACL-2018. We quantitatively and qualitatively assess the corpus. This includes a pilot study on paper weaknesses given by reviewers and on quality of author responses. We then focus on the role of the rebuttal phase, and propose a novel task to predict after-rebuttal (i.e., final) scores from initial reviews and author responses. Although author responses do have a marginal (and statistically significant) influence on the final scores, especially for borderline papers, our results suggest that a reviewer's final score is largely determined by her initial score and the distance to the other reviewers' initial scores. In this context, we discuss the conformity bias inherent to peer reviewing, a bias that has largely been overlooked in previous research. We hope our analyses will help better assess the usefulness of the rebuttal phase in NLP conferences.

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:1903.11367

Code (1)

UKPLab/naacl2019-does-my-rebuttal-matter 공식 구현

Tasks

4k

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Process

2025-11-19 · Amir Hossein Kargaran, Nafiseh Nikeghbal, Jing Yang, Nedjma Ousidhoum arxiv

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 crucia…

Re$^2$: A Consistency-ensured Dataset for Full-stage Peer Review and Multi-turn Rebuttal Discussions

2025-05-12 · Daoze Zhang, Zhijian Bao, Sihang Du, Zhiyi Zhao 외

Peer review is a critical component of scientific progress in the fields like AI, but the rapid increase in submission volume has strained the reviewing system, which inevitably leads to reviewer shortages and declines r…

DRPG (Decompose, Retrieve, Plan, Generate): An Agentic Framework for Academic Rebuttal

2026-01-26 · Peixuan Han, Yingjie Yu, Jingjun Xu, Jiaxuan You arxiv

Despite the growing adoption of large language models (LLMs) in scientific research workflows, automated support for academic rebuttal, a crucial step in academic communication and peer review, remains largely underexplo…

Long-Context Understanding

Commitment Checklist: Auditing Author Commitments in Peer Review

2026-01-08 · Chung-Chi Chen, Iryna Gurevych arxiv

Peer review author responses often include commitments to add experiments, release code, or clarify content in the final paper. Yet, there is currently no systematic mechanism to ensure authors fulfill these promises. In…

PatRe: A Full-Stage Office Action and Rebuttal Generation Benchmark for Patent Examination

2026-05-05 · Qiyao Wang, Xinyi Chen, Longze Chen, Hongbo Wang 외 arxiv

Patent examination is a complex, multi-stage process requiring both technical expertise and legal reasoning, increasingly challenged by rising application volumes. Prior benchmarks predominantly view patent examination a…

Legal Reasoning