Fetching the paper…
Reading the bibliography…
Peer review is the backbone of academia and humans constitute a cornerstone of this process, being responsible for reviewing papers and making the final acceptance/rejection decisions.
Does my rebuttal matter? Insights from a major NLP conference
Gao, Y., Eger, S., Kuznetsov, I., Gurevych, I., and Miyao, Y. (2019) · 1903
Earlier work this paper cites.
Argument mining for understanding peer reviews
Hua, X., Nikolov, M., Badugu, N., and Wang, L. (2019) · 1903
Earlier work this paper cites.
Vox populi
Galton, F. (1907) · 1907
Earlier work this paper cites.
Design and analysis of the NIPS 2016 review process
Shah, N. B., Tabibian, B., Muandet, K., Guyon, I., and Von Luxburg, U. (2018) · 1946
Earlier work this paper cites.
Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments
Asch, S. E. (1951) · 1951
Earlier work this paper cites.
Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974) · 1974
Earlier work this paper cites.
Leadership Dynamics: A Practical Guide to Effective Relationships
Hollander, E. (1978) · 1978
Earlier work this paper cites.
Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes
Janis, I. (1982) · 1982
Earlier work this paper cites.
Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making
McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., and Siegel, J. (1987) · 1987
Earlier work this paper cites.
The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups
Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., and Sethna, B. N. (1991) · 1991
Earlier work this paper cites.
A simple model of herd behavior
Banerjee, A. V. (1992) · 1992
Earlier work this paper cites.
Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups
Weisband, S. P. (1992) · 1992
Earlier work this paper cites.
The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence
Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., and Brunsman, B. (1996) · 1996
Earlier work this paper cites.
Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility
Strack, F. and Mussweiler, T. (1997) · 1997
Earlier work this paper cites.
Herding and feedback trading by institutional and individual investors
Nofsinger, J. R. and Sias, R. W. (1999) · 1999
Cited alongside, same era.
Who Is Rational? Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning
Stanovich, K. (1999) · 1999
Cited alongside, same era.
Discussion between reviewers does not improve reliability of peer review of hospital quality
Hofer, T. P., Bernstein, S. J., DeMonner, S., and Hayward, R. A. (2000) · 2000
Cited alongside, same era.
Considering the impossible: Explaining the effects of implausible anchors
Mussweiler, T. and Strack, F. (2001) · 2001
Cited alongside, same era.
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment
Kahneman, D. and Frederick, S. (2002) · 2002
Cited alongside, same era.
Social influence: Compliance and conformity
Cialdini, R. and Goldstein, N. (2004) · 2004
Paper matching with local fairness constraints
Kobren, A., Saha, B., and McCallum, A. (2019) · 2019
Later among the works it cites.
On testing for biases in peer review
Stelmakh, I., Shah, N., and Singh, A. (2019) · 2019
Later among the works it cites.
Social influence among experts: Field experimental evidence from peer review
Teplitskiy, M., Ranub, H., Grayb, G. S., Meniettid, M., Guinan, E. C., and Lakhani, K. R. (2019) · 2019
Later among the works it cites.
Your 2 is my 1, your 3 is my 9: Handling arbitrary miscalibrations in ratings
Wang, J. and Shah, N. B. (2019) · 2019
Later among the works it cites.
On strategyproof conference review
Xu, Y., Zhao, H., Shi, X., and Shah, N. (2019) · 2019
Later among the works it cites.
A SUPER* algorithm to optimize paper bidding in peer review
Fiez, T., Shah, N., and Ratliff, L. (2020) · 2020
Closest in time.
alphaXiv searches the wider corpus for related work and actual follow-ups.
alphaXiv is searching for related work…
Cited alongside, same era.
The Wisdom of Crowds
Surowiecki, J. (2005) · 2005
Cited alongside, same era.
Assigning papers to referees
Garg, N., Kavitha, T., Kumar, A., Mehlhorn, K., and Mestre, J. (2010) · 2010
Cited alongside, same era.
How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect
Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F., and Helbing, D. (2011) · 2011
Cited alongside, same era.
A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization
Bond, R., Fariss, C., Jones, J., Kramer, A., Marlow, C., Settle, J., and Fowler, J. (2012) · 2012
Cited alongside, same era.
Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review
Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., and Heavlin, W. D. (2017) · 2017
Cited alongside, same era.
A dataset of peer reviews (PeerRead): Collection, insights and NLP applications
Kang, D., Ammar, W., Dalvi, B., van Zuylen, M., Kohlmeier, S., Hovy, E. H., and Schwartz, R. (2018) · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Mitigating manipulation in peer review via randomized reviewer assignments
Jecmen, S., Zhang, H., Liu, R., Shah, N. B., Conitzer, V., and Fang, F. (2020) · 2020
Closest in time.
The NIPS experiment
Lawrence, N. and Cortes, C. (2014) · 2020
Closest in time.
Uncovering latent biases in text: Method and application to peer review
Manzoor, E. and Shah, N. B. (2020) · 2020
Closest in time.
A market-inspired bidding scheme for peer review paper assignment
Meir, R., Lang, J., Lesca, J., Kaminsky, N., and Mattei, N. (2020) · 2020
Closest in time.
Loss functions, axioms, and peer review
Noothigattu, R., Shah, N. B., and Procaccia, A. D. (2020) · 2020
Closest in time.
Bias and Groupthink in Science’s Peer-Review System
Resnik, D. B. and Smith, E. M. (2020) · 2020
Closest in time.
Catch me if i can: Detecting strategic behaviour in peer assessment
Stelmakh, I., Shah, N. B., and Singh, A. (2020) · 2020
Closest in time.