Group Fairness in Peer Review
Large conferences such as NeurIPS and AAAI serve as crossroads of various AI fields, since they attract submissions from a vast number of communities. However, in some cases, this has resulted in a poor reviewing experience for some communities, whose submissions get assigned to less qualified reviewers outside of their communities. An often-advocated solution is to break up any such large conference into smaller conferences, but this can lead to isolation of communities and harm interdisciplinary research. We tackle this challenge by introducing a notion of group fairness, called the core, which requires that every possible community (subset of researchers) to be treated in a way that prevents them from unilaterally benefiting by withdrawing from a large conference. We study a simple peer review model, prove that it always admits a reviewing assignment in the core, and design an efficient algorithm to find one such assignment. We use real data from CVPR and ICLR conferences to compare our algorithm to existing reviewing assignment algorithms on a number of metrics.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
FairnessSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach
Double-blind peer review mechanism has become the skeleton of academic research across multiple disciplines including computer science, yet several studies have questioned the quality of peer reviews and raised concerns …
FairnessLanguage ModelingLanguage ModellingReview GenerationPeerReview4All: Fair and Accurate Reviewer Assignment in Peer Review
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 di…
FairnessFrom Bias to Balance: Fairness-Aware Paper Recommendation for Equitable Peer Review
Despite frequent double-blind review, systemic biases related to author demographics still disadvantage underrepresented groups. We start from a simple hypothesis: if a post-review recommender is trained with an explicit…
Peerispect: Claim Verification in Scientific Peer Reviews
Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifia…
Natural Language InferenceInformation RetrievalAssisting Decision Making in Scholarly Peer Review: A Preference Learning Perspective
Peer review is the primary means of quality control in academia; as an outcome of a peer review process, program and area chairs make acceptance decisions for each paper based on the review reports and scores they receiv…
Decision MakingFairness