Causal Effect of Group Diversity on Redundancy and Coverage in Peer-Reviewing (2411.11437v1)

Abstract: A large host of scientific journals and conferences solicit peer reviews from multiple reviewers for the same submission, aiming to gather a broader range of perspectives and mitigate individual biases. In this work, we reflect on the role of diversity in the slate of reviewers assigned to evaluate a submitted paper as a factor in diversifying perspectives and improving the utility of the peer-review process. We propose two measures for assessing review utility: review coverage -- reviews should cover most contents of the paper -- and review redundancy -- reviews should add information not already present in other reviews. We hypothesize that reviews from diverse reviewers will exhibit high coverage and low redundancy. We conduct a causal study of different measures of reviewer diversity on review coverage and redundancy using observational data from a peer-reviewed conference with approximately 5,000 submitted papers. Our study reveals disparate effects of different diversity measures on review coverage and redundancy. Our study finds that assigning a group of reviewers that are topically diverse, have different seniority levels, or have distinct publication networks leads to broader coverage of the paper or review criteria, but we find no evidence of an increase in coverage for reviewer slates with reviewers from diverse organizations or geographical locations. Reviewers from different organizations, seniority levels, topics, or publications networks (all except geographical diversity) lead to a decrease in redundancy in reviews. Furthermore, publication network-based diversity alone also helps bring in varying perspectives (that is, low redundancy), even within specific review criteria. Our study adopts a group decision-making perspective for reviewer assignments in peer review and suggests dimensions of diversity that can help guide the reviewer assignment process.

• The paper demonstrates that diverse reviewer panels significantly increase review coverage and decrease redundancy in the peer-review process.
• It employs a causal modeling framework with linear regression and propensity score matching to analyze approximately 5,000 ICML 2020 submissions.
• Findings indicate that co-authorship, topical, and seniority diversity are key to optimized review quality, while geographical diversity shows limited impact.

Analysis of Group Diversity's Impact on Redundancy and Coverage in Peer Review

This paper investigates the causal effects of group diversity on review redundancy and coverage within the peer-review process. The paper addresses a critical aspect of scientific research assessment by analyzing the impact of reviewer diversity on the utility of peer reviews, particularly focusing on conference submissions.

Key Research Objectives and Hypotheses

The primary objectives are to evaluate how different diversity dimensions among reviewers—such as organization, geographical location, seniority, research topic, and co-authorship—affect two crucial measures of review utility: coverage and redundancy. The paper formulates two central hypotheses:

1. Diverse reviewer slates result in higher review coverage.
2. Diverse reviewer slates lead to lower review redundancy.

Review coverage pertains to how comprehensively a group of reviews addresses the various facets of a paper, while redundancy refers to the repetition of information across different reviews, which ideally should be minimal to ensure unique contributions from each review.

Methodological Framework

The paper employs a causal modeling framework to dissect the effects of diversity, using observational data from the ICML 2020 conference involving approximately 5,000 submissions. The key challenge in the paper is controlling for confounding variables, such as the intrinsic quality of the paper and the expertise level of the reviewers. The analysis counterbalances these confounding effects by leveraging both a parametric approach using linear regression and a non-parametric approach through propensity score matching.

Diversity is rigorously quantified across five axes: organizational, geographical, co-authorship, topical, and seniority. The paper particularly highlights the nuanced ways in which these dimensions of diversity can interact with review outcomes, underlining the significance of a multi-faceted evaluation.

Principal Findings

The findings reveal distinct impacts of different diversity measures on review outcomes:

• Co-authorship and Seniority Diversity: Both demonstrate positive effects on type coverage, implying that reviews from individuals with varying seniority levels or publication networks cover more ground in assessing different dimensions of the submission.
• Topical Diversity: This dimension enhances paper coverage, suggesting that reviewers with differing topical expertise collectively offer a broader analysis of a submission's content.
• Organizational, Co-authorship, Topical, and Seniority Diversity: These reduce lexical and semantic redundancy, indicating that diversely constituted review panels tend to provide unique insights, thus reducing repetition.

Conversely, geographical diversity did not exhibit a significant impact on review coverage or redundancy, challenging some assumptions about the benefits of geographical diversification in peer review panels.

Policy Implications

The paper provides actionable insights for conference organizers and journal editors. By advocating for the inclusion of diverse reviewer slates—particularly focusing on co-authorship, topology, and seniority diversity—the research offers guidelines to enhance review utility. This could potentially inform reviewer assignment algorithms to ensure more equitable and comprehensive peer evaluations. Moreover, the non-significant impact of geographical diversity suggests that emphasis might be better placed on more impactful diversity dimensions.

Future Directions

The results indicate avenues for further inquiry. Expanding the scope beyond initial reviews to include the dynamics of reviewer discussions could yield additional insights. Moreover, exploring other facets of review utility, such as the integration of reviewer comments into more holistic decision-making processes, could be pursued. This paper paves the way for enhancing both the transparency and effectiveness of the peer review process through informed strategic diversity.

In summary, the paper provides a nuanced analysis of how diversity within peer-review panels can significantly alter the richness and depth of academic evaluations. Its insights are pivotal for stakeholders aiming to refine peer-review mechanisms to foster a more dynamic and inclusive scholarly communication ecosystem.