Inconsistency in Conference Peer Review: Revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS Experiment

20 September 2021

Papers citing "Inconsistency in Conference Peer Review: Revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS Experiment"

7 / 7 papers shown

Title
Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards Jaeho Kim Yunseok Lee Seulki Lee 36 0 0 08 May 2025
Paper Copilot: The Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Community Should Adopt a More Transparent and Regulated Peer Review Process Jing Yang 54 0 0 02 Feb 2025
The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review Buxin Su Jiayao Zhang Natalie Collina Yuling Yan Didong Li Kyunghyun Cho Jianqing Fan Aaron Roth Weijie J. Su 19 4 0 24 Aug 2024
Eliciting Honest Information From Authors Using Sequential Review Yichi Zhang Grant Schoenebeck Weijie Su 22 0 0 24 Nov 2023
How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors' Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions? Charvi Rastogi Ivan Stelmakh A. Beygelzimer Yann N. Dauphin Percy Liang Jennifer Wortman Vaughan Zhenyu Xue Hal Daumé Emma Pierson Nihar B. Shah 15 11 0 22 Nov 2022
Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach Jiayao Zhang Hongming Zhang Zhun Deng Dan Roth 43 14 0 07 Nov 2022
Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Review Siddarth Srinivasan Jamie Morgenstern 16 4 0 27 Aug 2021