Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userA Semi-automated Peer-review System
205
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Bradly Alicea
Publication date
2013
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Bradly Alicea
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
A semi-supervised model of peer review is introduced that is intended to overcome the bias and incompleteness of traditional peer review. Traditional approaches are reliant on human biases, while consensus decision-making is constrained by sparse information. Here, the architecture for one potential improvement (a semi-supervised, human-assisted classifier) to the traditional approach will be introduced and evaluated. To evaluate the potential advantages of such a system, hypothetical receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for both approaches will be assessed. This will provide more specific indications of how automation would be beneficial in the manuscript evaluation process. In conclusion, the implications for such a system on measurements of scientific impact and improving the quality of open submission repositories will be discussed.
rate research
Read More
Peer-review system has long been relied upon for bringing quality research to the notice of the scientific community and also preventing flawed research from entering into the literature. The need for the peer-review system has often been debated as in numerous cases it has failed in its task and in most of these cases editors and the reviewers were thought to be responsible for not being able to correctly judge the quality of the work. This raises a question Can the peer-review system be improved? Since editors and reviewers are the most important pillars of a reviewing system, we in this work, attempt to address a related question - given the editing/reviewing history of the editors or re- viewers can we identify the under-performing ones?, with citations received by the edited/reviewed papers being used as proxy for quantifying performance. We term such review- ers and editors as anomalous and we believe identifying and removing them shall improve the performance of the peer- review system. Using a massive dataset of Journal of High Energy Physics (JHEP) consisting of 29k papers submitted between 1997 and 2015 with 95 editors and 4035 reviewers and their review history, we identify several factors which point to anomalous behavior of referees and editors. In fact the anomalous editors and reviewers account for 26.8% and 14.5% of the total editors and reviewers respectively and for most of these anomalous reviewers the performance degrades alarmingly over time.
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 rate. To curb this trend and reduce the burden on reviewers, several conferences have started encouraging or even requiring authors to declare the previous submission history of their papers. Such initiatives have been met with skepticism among authors, who raise the concern about a potential bias in reviewers recommendations induced by this information. In this work, we investigate whether reviewers exhibit a bias caused by the knowledge that the submission under review was previously rejected at a similar venue, focusing on a population of novice reviewers who constitute a large fraction of the reviewer pool in leading machine learning and computer science conferences. We design and conduct a randomized controlled trial closely replicating the relevant components of the peer-review pipeline with $133$ reviewers (masters, junior PhD students, and recent graduates of top US universities) writing reviews for $19$ papers. The analysis reveals that reviewers indeed become negatively biased when they receive a signal about paper being a resubmission, giving almost 1 point lower overall score on a 10-point Likert item ($Delta = -0.78, 95% text{CI} = [-1.30, -0.24]$) than reviewers who do not receive such a signal. Looking at specific criteria scores (originality, quality, clarity and significance), we observe that novice reviewers tend to underrate quality the most.
A `peer-review system in the context of judging research contributions, is one of the prime steps undertaken to ensure the quality of the submissions received, a significant portion of the publishing budget is spent towards successful completion of the peer-review by the publication houses. Nevertheless, the scientific community is largely reaching a consensus that peer-review system, although indispensable, is nonetheless flawed. A very pertinent question therefore is could this system be improved?. In this paper, we attempt to present an answer to this question by considering a massive dataset of around $29k$ papers with roughly $70k$ distinct review reports together consisting of $12m$ lines of review text from the Journal of High Energy Physics (JHEP) between 1997 and 2015. In specific, we introduce a novel textit{reviewer-reviewer interaction network} (an edge exists between two reviewers if they were assigned by the same editor) and show that surprisingly the simple structural properties of this network such as degree, clustering coefficient, centrality (closeness, betweenness etc.) serve as strong predictors of the long-term citations (i.e., the overall scientific impact) of a submitted paper. These features, when plugged in a regression model, alone achieves a high $R^2$ of 0.79 and a low $RMSE$ of 0.496 in predicting the long-term citations. In addition, we also design a set of supporting features built from the basic characteristics of the submitted papers, the authors and the referees (e.g., the popularity of the submitting author, the acceptance rate history of a referee, the linguistic properties laden in the text of the review reports etc.), which further results in overall improvement with $R^2$ of 0.81 and $RMSE$ of 0.46.
The use of bibliometric indicators would simplify research assessments. The 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a peer review assessment of UK universities, whose results can be taken as benchmarks for bibliometric indicators. In this study we use the REF results to investigate whether the ep index and a top percentile of most cited papers could substitute for peer review. The probability that a random universitys paper reaches a certain top percentile in the global distribution of papers is a power of the ep index, which can be calculated from the citation-based distribution of universitys papers in global top percentiles. Making use of the ep index in each university and research area, we calculated the ratios between the percentage of 4-star-rated outputs in REF and the percentages of papers in global top percentiles. Then, we fixed the assessment percentile so that the mean ratio between these two indicators across universities is 1.0. This method was applied to four units of assessment in REF: Chemistry, Economics & Econometrics joined to Business & Management Studies, and Physics. Some relevant deviations from the 1.0 ratio could be explained by the evaluation procedure in REF or by the characteristics of the research field; other deviations need specific studies by experts in the research area. The present results indicate that in many research areas the substitution of a top percentile indicator for peer review is possible. However, this substitution cannot be made straightforwardly; more research is needed to establish the conditions of the bibliometric assessment.
Optimized reviewer assignment can effectively utilize limited intellectual resources and significantly assure review quality in various scenarios such as paper selection in conference or journal, proposal selection in funding agencies and so on. However, little research on reviewer assignment of software peer review has been found. In this study, an optimization approach is proposed based on students preference matrix and the model of asymmetric traveling salesman problem (ATSP). Due to the most critical role of rule matrix in this approach, we conduct a questionnaire to obtain students preference matrices and convert them to rule matrices. With the help of software ILOG CPLEX, the approach is accomplished by controlling the exit criterion of ATSP model. The comparative study shows that the assignment strategies with both reviewers preference matrix and authors preference matrix get better performance than the random assignment. Especially, it is found that the performance is just a little better than that of random assignment when the reviewers and authors preference matrices are merged. In other words, the majority of students have a strong wish of harmonious development even though high-level students are not willing to do that.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
