Fetching the paper…
Reading the bibliography…
We consider three important challenges in conference peer review: (i) reviewers maliciously attempting to get assigned to certain papers to provide positive reviews, possibly as part of quid-pro-quo arrangements with the authors; (ii) "torpedo reviewing," where reviewers deliberately attempt to get assigned to certain papers that they dislike in order to reject them; (iii) reviewer de-anonymization on release of the similarities and the reviewer-assignment code.
Three observations on linear algebra
Garrett Birkhoff · 1946
Earlier work this paper cites.
A certain zero-sum two-person game equivalent to the optimal assignment problem
John Von Neumann · 1953
Earlier work this paper cites.
The Matthew effect in science
Robert K Merton · 1968
Earlier work this paper cites.
Algorithm for solution of a problem of maximum flow in networks with power estimation
Efim A Dinic · 1970
Earlier work this paper cites.
Reducibility among combinatorial problems
Richard M Karp · 1972
Earlier work this paper cites.
The efficient allocation of individuals to positions
Aanund Hylland and Richard Zeckhauser · 1979
Earlier work this paper cites.
A new solution to the random assignment problem
Anna Bogomolnaia and Hervé Moulin · 2001
Earlier work this paper cites.
How to break anonymity of the Netflix Prize dataset
Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov · 2006
Earlier work this paper cites.
The AI conference paper assignment problem
Judy Goldsmith and Robert H Sloan · 2007
Earlier work this paper cites.
Peer review: Benefits, perceptions and alternatives
Mark Ware · 2008
Earlier work this paper cites.
Implementing random assignments : A generalization of the Birkhoff-von Neumann theorem
Eric Budish, Yeon-Koo Che, Fuhito Kojima, and Paul Milgrom · 2009
Earlier work this paper cites.
Introduction to algorithms
Thomas H Cormen, Charles E Leiserson, Ronald L Rivest, and Clifford Stein · 2009
Earlier work this paper cites.
I hate your paper. Many say the peer review system is broken. Here’s how some journals are trying to fix it
Jef Akst · 2010
Earlier work this paper cites.
Expertise matching via constraint-based optimization
Wenbin Tang, Jie Tang, and Chenhao Tan · 2010
Earlier work this paper cites.
Novel tools to streamline the conference review process: Experiences from SIGKDD’09
Peter A Flach, Sebastian Spiegler, Bruno Golénia, Simon Price, John Guiver, Ralf Herbrich, Thore Graepel, and Mohammed J Zaki · 2010
Earlier work this paper cites.
Assigning papers to referees
N. Garg, T. Kavitha, A. Kumar, K. Mehlhorn, and J. Mestre · 2010
Earlier work this paper cites.
Complexity of computing optimal Stackelberg strategies in security resource allocation games
Dmytro Korzhyk, Vincent Conitzer, and Ronald Parr · 2010
Earlier work this paper cites.
Assigning papers to referees
Naveen Garg, Telikepalli Kavitha, Amit Kumar, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Julián Mestre · 2010
Earlier work this paper cites.
How to calibrate the scores of biased reviewers by quadratic programming
Magnus Roos, Jörg Rothe, and Björn Scheuermann · 2011
Earlier work this paper cites.
Review graph based online store review spammer detection
Guan Wang, Sihong Xie, Bing Liu, and S Yu Philip · 2011
Earlier work this paper cites.
Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination
Myle Ott, Yejin Choi, Claire Cardie, and Jeffrey T Hancock · 2011
Earlier work this paper cites.
A framework for optimizing paper matching
Laurent Charlin, Richard S Zemel, and Craig Boutilier · 2012
Cited alongside, same era.
Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers
Adrian Mulligan, Louise Hall, and Ellen Raphael · 2013
Cited alongside, same era.
The Toronto Paper Matching System: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system
Laurent Charlin and Richard Zemel · 2013
Cited alongside, same era.
On good and fair paper-reviewer assignment
Cheng Long, Raymond Chi-Wing Wong, Yu Peng, and Liangliang Ye · 2013
Cited alongside, same era.
Impartial nominations for a prize
Ron Holzman and Hervé Moulin · 2013
Cited alongside, same era.
Opinion fraud detection in online reviews by network effects
Leman Akoglu, Rishi Chandy, and Christos Faloutsos · 2013
A dataset of peer reviews (PeerRead): Collection, insights and NLP applications
Dongyeop Kang, Waleed Ammar, Bhavana Dalvi, Madeleine van Zuylen, Sebastian Kohlmeier, Eduard H. Hovy, and Roy Schwartz · 2018
Later among the works it cites.
On strategyproof conference peer review
Yichong Xu, Han Zhao, Xiaofei Shi, Jeremy Zhang, and Nihar B. Shah · 2018
Later among the works it cites.
Ranking wily people who rank each other
Anson Kahng, Yasmine Kotturi, Chinmay Kulkarni, David Kurokawa, and Ariel D Procaccia · 2018
Later among the works it cites.
REV2: Fraudulent user prediction in rating platforms
Srijan Kumar, Bryan Hooi, Disha Makhija, Mohit Kumar, Christos Faloutsos, and VS Subrahmanian · 2018
Later among the works it cites.
Paper matching with local fairness constraints
Ari Kobren, Barna Saha, and Andrew McCallum · 2019
Later among the works it cites.
alphaXiv searches the wider corpus for related work and actual follow-ups.
alphaXiv is searching for related work…
Cited alongside, same era.
PrefLib: A library of preference data http://preflib.org
Nicholas Mattei and Toby Walsh · 2013
Cited alongside, same era.
Publishing: The peer-review scam
Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus, and Ivan Oransky · 2014
Cited alongside, same era.
Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining ’rational cheating’ in peer review
Edward F Barroga · 2014
Cited alongside, same era.
Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: From junk support to elitism
Mario Paolucci and Francisco Grimaldo · 2014
Cited alongside, same era.
Peer review: Still king in the digital age
David Nicholas, Anthony Watkinson, Hamid R Jamali, Eti Herman, Carol Tenopir, Rachel Volentine, Suzie Allard, and Kenneth Levine · 2015
Cited alongside, same era.
Impartial peer review
David Kurokawa, Omer Lev, Jamie Morgenstern, and Ariel D Procaccia · 2015
Cited alongside, same era.
Your 2 is my 1, your 3 is my 9: Handling arbitrary miscalibrations in ratings
Jingyan Wang and Nihar B Shah · 2019
Later among the works it cites.
On testing for biases in peer review
Ivan Stelmakh, Nihar Shah, and Aarti Singh · 2019
Later among the works it cites.
Strategyproof peer selection using randomization, partitioning, and apportionment
Haris Aziz, Omer Lev, Nicholas Mattei, Jeffrey S Rosenschein, and Toby Walsh · 2019
Later among the works it cites.
Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
T. N. Vijaykumar · 2020
Closest in time.
Bidding problems
John Langford · 2020
Closest in time.
A Bayesian model for calibrating conference review scores
Hong Ge, Max Welling, and Zoubin Ghahramani · 2020
Closest in time.
A SUPER* algorithm to optimize paper bidding in peer review
T Fiez, N Shah, and L Ratliff · 2020
Closest in time.
The NIPS experiment
N. Lawrence and C. Cortes · 2020
Closest in time.
Uncovering latent biases in text: Method and application to peer review
Emaad Manzoor and Nihar B Shah · 2020
Closest in time.
Prior and prejudice: The bias against resubmissions in conference peer review
Ivan Stelmakh, Nihar Shah, Aarti Singh, and Hal Daumé III · 2020
Closest in time.
Catch me if I can: Detecting strategic behaviour in peer assessment
Ivan Stelmakh, Nihar Shah, and Aarti Singh · 2020
Closest in time.
On the privacy-utility tradeoff in peer-review data analysis
Wenxin Ding, Nihar B., and Weina Wang · 2020
Closest in time.
Shilling attacks against collaborative recommender systems: A review
Mingdan Si and Qingshan Li · 2020
Closest in time.
Faster dynamic matrix inverse for faster LPs
Shunhua Jiang, Zhao Song, Omri Weinstein, and Hengjie Zhang · 2020
Closest in time.
Gurobi optimizer reference manual, 2020
LLC Gurobi Optimization · 2020
Closest in time.