اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدA Novice-Reviewer Experiment to Address Scarcity of Qualified Reviewers in Large Conferences
74
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
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).
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
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 re
duce 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.
Voice User Interfaces (VUIs) owing to recent developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Natural Language Processing (NLP), are becoming increasingly intuitive and functional. They are especially promising for older adults, also with special nee
ds, as VUIs remove some barriers related to access to Information and Communications Technology (ICT) solutions. In this pilot study we examine interdisciplinary opportunities in the area of VUIs as assistive technologies, based on an exploratory study with older adults, and a follow-up in-depth pilot study with two participants regarding the needs of people who are gradually losing their sight at a later age.
A bicycle wheel that was initially spinning freely was placed in contact with a rough surface and a digital film was made of its motion. Using Tracker software for video analysis, we obtained the velocity vectors for several points on the wheel, in t
he frame of reference of the laboratory as well as in a relative frame of reference having as its origin the wheel`s center of mass. The velocity of the wheel`s point of contact with the floor was also determined obtaining then a complete picture of the kinematic state of the wheel in both frames of reference. An empirical approach of this sort to problems in mechanics can contribute to overcoming the considerable difficulties they entail.
Peer review is the backbone of academia and humans constitute a cornerstone of this process, being responsible for reviewing papers and making the final acceptance/rejection decisions. Given that human decision making is known to be susceptible to va
rious cognitive biases, it is important to understand which (if any) biases are present in the peer-review process and design the pipeline such that the impact of these biases is minimized. In this work, we focus on the dynamics of between-reviewers discussions and investigate the presence of herding behaviour therein. In that, we aim to understand whether reviewers and more senior decision makers get disproportionately influenced by the first argument presented in the discussion when (in case of reviewers) they form an independent opinion about the paper before discussing it with others. Specifically, in conjunction with the review process of ICML 2020 -- a large, top tier machine learning conference -- we design and execute a randomized controlled trial with the goal of testing for the conditional causal effect of the discussion initiators opinion on the outcome of a paper.
Context: Software code reviews are an important part of the development process, leading to better software quality and reduced overall costs. However, finding appropriate code reviewers is a complex and time-consuming task. Goals: In this paper, we
propose a large-scale study to compare performance of two main source code reviewer recommendation algorithms (RevFinder and a Naive Bayes-based approach) in identifying the best code reviewers for opened pull requests. Method: We mined data from Github and Gerrit repositories, building a large dataset of 51 projects, with more than 293K pull requests analyzed, 180K owners and 157K reviewers. Results: Based on the large analysis, we can state that i) no model can be generalized as best for all projects, ii) the usage of a different repository (Gerrit, GitHub) can have impact on the the recommendation results, iii) exploiting sub-projects information available in Gerrit can improve the recommendation results.
الأسئلة المقترحة
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
