Fetching the paper…

Reading the bibliography…

2018

Avoiding a Tragedy of the Commons in the Peer Review Process

Sculley, D, Snoek, Jasper, Wiltschko, Alex

Original
PDF
Post on X

Understand

Peer review is the foundation of scientific publication, and the task of reviewing has long been seen as a cornerstone of professional service.

However, the massive growth in the field of machine learning has put this community benefit under stress, threatening both the sustainability of an effective review process and the overall progress of the field.
In this position paper, we argue that a tragedy of the commons outcome may be avoided by emphasizing the professional aspects of this service.
In particular, we propose a rubric to hold reviewers to an objective standard for review quality.

Avoiding a Tragedy of the Commons in the Peer Review Process · Around

Built on

Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment
H. Andrade and D. Ying · 2005
Earlier work this paper cites.
The role of rubrics in advancing and assessing student learning
Kenneth Wolf and Ellen Stevens · 2007
Earlier work this paper cites.

Similar

The tragedy of the reviewer commons
Michael E Hochberg, Jonathan M Chase, Nicholas J Gotelli, Alan Hastings, and Shahid Naeem · 2009
Cited alongside, same era.
Troubling trends in machine learning scholarship
Zachary C. Lipton and Jacob Steinhardt · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.

Then

Winner’s curse? on pace, progress, and empirical rigor
D. Sculley, Jasper Snoek, Alex Wiltschko, and Ali Rahimi · 2018
Closest in time.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/NonFederalPeerReviewTravelGuidelines.pdf , 2018
Non-federal peer review travel guidelines · 2018
Closest in time.

Beyond the bibliography

alphaXiv searches the wider corpus for related work and actual follow-ups.

Open on alphaXiv

alphaXiv is searching for related work…