Eliciting Honest Information From Authors Using Sequential Review (2311.14619v1)
Abstract: In the setting of conference peer review, the conference aims to accept high-quality papers and reject low-quality papers based on noisy review scores. A recent work proposes the isotonic mechanism, which can elicit the ranking of paper qualities from an author with multiple submissions to help improve the conference's decisions. However, the isotonic mechanism relies on the assumption that the author's utility is both an increasing and a convex function with respect to the review score, which is often violated in peer review settings (e.g.~when authors aim to maximize the number of accepted papers). In this paper, we propose a sequential review mechanism that can truthfully elicit the ranking information from authors while only assuming the agent's utility is increasing with respect to the true quality of her accepted papers. The key idea is to review the papers of an author in a sequence based on the provided ranking and conditioning the review of the next paper on the review scores of the previous papers. Advantages of the sequential review mechanism include 1) eliciting truthful ranking information in a more realistic setting than prior work; 2) improving the quality of accepted papers, reducing the reviewing workload and increasing the average quality of papers being reviewed; 3) incentivizing authors to write fewer papers of higher quality.
- Strategyproof peer selection using randomization, partitioning, and apportionment. Artificial Intelligence, 275:295–309, 2019.
- Tony Bazi. Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind? International Urogynecology Journal, 31(3):481–483, 2020.
- Rebecca M Blank. The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the american economic review. The American Economic Review, pages 1041–1067, 1991.
- Capitalizing on order effects in the bids of peer-reviewed conferences to secure reviews by expert referees. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2):405–415, 2013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22747. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.22747.
- Organised crime against the academic peer review system. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 81(6):1012, 2016.
- Inconsistency in conference peer review: Revisiting the 2014 neurips experiment, 2021.
- Impartial division of a dollar. Journal of Economic Theory, 139(1):176–191, 2008.
- Strategyproofing peer assessment via partitioning: The price in terms of evaluators’ expertise. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, volume 10, pages 53–63, 2022.
- Daniele Fanelli. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? a systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one, 4(5):e5738, 2009.
- Peer review bias: a critical review. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings, volume 94, pages 670–676. Elsevier, 2019.
- Mitigating manipulation in peer review via randomized reviewer assignments. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:12533–12545, 2020.
- Conservatism gets funded? a field experiment on the role of negative information in novel project evaluation. Management science, 68(6):4478–4495, 2022.
- The nips experiment. See http://inverseprobability. com/2014/12/16/the-nips-experiment (accessed 3 March 2021), 2014.
- Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 64(1):2–17, 2013.
- Michael L Littman. Collusion rings threaten the integrity of computer science research. Communications of the ACM, 64(6):43–44, 2021.
- A market-inspired bidding scheme for peer review paper assignment. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 4776–4784, 2021.
- Incentives, quality, and risks: A look into the nsf proposal review pilot, 2013.
- Perceptions and truth: A mechanism design approach to crowd-sourcing reputation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 24(1):163–176, 2016. doi: 10.1109/TNET.2014.2359767.
- Avoiding a tragedy of the commons in the peer review process, 2018.
- Nihar B. Shah. Principled methods to improve peer review. 2019. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:208781231.
- Nihar B Shah. Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review. Communications of the ACM, 65(6):76–87, 2022.
- S S Siegelman. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. special report. Radiology, 178(3):637–642, 1991. doi: 10.1148/radiology.178.3.1994394. URL https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.178.3.1994394. PMID: 1994394.
- Richard Snodgrass. Single-versus double-blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature. ACM Sigmod Record, 35(3):8–21, 2006.
- H.W. Sorenson. Parameter and state estimation: Introduction and interrelation. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 15(4):85–89, 1982. ISSN 1474-6670. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)62968-9. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474667017629689. 6th IFAC Symposium on Identification and System Parameter Estimation, Washington USA, 7-11 June.
- Weighting peer reviewers. In 2014 Twelfth Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust, pages 414–419. IEEE, 2014.
- Auctions and prediction markets for scientific peer review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.00923, 2021.
- Weijie J Su. You are the best reviewer of your own papers: An owner-assisted scoring mechanism. In A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=xmx5rE9QP7R.
- Your 2 is my 1, your 3 is my 9: Handling arbitrary miscalibrations in ratings, 2018.
- An isotonic mechanism for overlapping ownership, 2023.
- On strategyproof conference peer review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.06266, 2018.
- The isotonic mechanism for exponential family estimation, 2023.
- A system-level analysis of conference peer review. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC ’22, page 1041–1080, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450391504. doi: 10.1145/3490486.3538235. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3490486.3538235.
- Yichi Zhang (184 papers)
- Grant Schoenebeck (51 papers)
- Weijie Su (37 papers)