A Novice-Reviewer Experiment to Address Scarcity of Qualified Reviewers in Large Conferences
Ivan Stelmakh, Nihar B. Shah, Aarti Singh, Hal Daumé III
Abstract
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 the 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).
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 3bf1c717-a94a-4820-8e70-a8e30e0b424aCited by top-tier papers5
- You Are the Best Reviewer of Your Own Papers: An Owner-Assisted Scoring MechanismWeijie J. SuNeurIPS 2021 · 32 citations
- Counterfactual Evaluation of Peer-Review Assignment PoliciesMartin Saveski, Steven Jecmen, Nihar B. Shah, Johan UganderNeurIPS 2023 · 19 citations
- Prior and Prejudice: The Novice Reviewers' Bias against Resubmissions in Conference Peer ReviewIvan Stelmakh, Nihar B. Shah, Aarti Singh, Hal Daumé IIICSCW 2021 · 17 citations
- On Truthful Item-Acquiring Mechanisms for Reward MaximizationLiang Shan, Shuo Zhang, Jie Zhang, Zihe WangWWW 2024
- The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for AuthorsAbdelrahman Sadallah, Tim Baumgärtner, Iryna Gurevych, Ted BriscoeEMNLP 2025
Builds on3
- Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer AssignmentsSteven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu, Nihar B. Shah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 90 citations
- Prior and Prejudice: The Novice Reviewers' Bias against Resubmissions in Conference Peer ReviewIvan Stelmakh, Nihar B. Shah, Aarti Singh, Hal Daumé IIICSCW 2021 · 17 citations
- HirePeer: Impartial Peer-Assessed Hiring at Scale in Expert Crowdsourcing MarketsYasmine Kotturi, Anson Kahng, Ariel D. Procaccia, Chinmay KulkarniAAAI 2020 · 15 citations
Related papers
- Peer Grading the Peer Reviews: A Dual-Role Approach for Lightening the Scholarly Paper Review ProcessInes Arous, Jie Yang, Mourad Khayati, Philippe Cudré-MaurouxWWW 2021 · 14 citations
- Group Fairness in Peer ReviewHaris Aziz, Evi Micha, Nisarg ShahNeurIPS 2023 · 15 citations
- A Needle in a Haystack: An Analysis of High-Agreement Workers on MTurk for SummarizationLining Zhang, Simon Mille, Yufang Hou, Daniel Deutsch et al.ACL 2023 · 6 citations
- The AI Review Lottery: Widespread AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Boost Paper Scores and Acceptance RatesGiuseppe Russo, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Tim R. Davidson, Veniamin Veselovsky et al.CSCW 2025 · 10 citations
- CoCoReviewBench: A Completeness- and Correctness-Oriented Benchmark for AI ReviewersHexuan Deng, Xiaopeng Ke, Yichen Li, Ruina Hu et al.ICML 2026
