Fetching the paper…
Reading the bibliography…
Many conferences rely on paper bidding as a key component of their reviewer assignment procedure.
Expertise modeling for matching papers with reviewers
David Mimno and Andrew McCallum · 2007
Earlier work this paper cites.
The AI conference paper assignment problem
Judy Goldsmith and Robert H. Sloan · 2007
Earlier work this paper cites.
Bidding agents for online auctions with hidden bids
Albert Xin Jiang and Kevin Leyton-Brown · 2007
Earlier work this paper cites.
An algorithm to determine peer-reviewers
Marko A. Rodriguez and Johan Bollen · 2008
Earlier work this paper cites.
On the optimal assignment of conference papers to reviewers
Camillo J. Taylor · 2008
Earlier work this paper cites.
Telescope time without tears: a distributed approach to peer review
Michael R Merrifield and Donald G Saari · 2009
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.
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.
The Toronto Paper Matching System: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system
Laurent Charlin and Richard S. 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.
Capitalizing on order effects in the bids of peer-reviewed conferences to secure reviews by expert referees
Guillaume Cabanac and Thomas Preuss · 2013
Cited alongside, same era.
A robust model for paper reviewer assignment
Xiang Liu, Torsten Suel, and Nasir Memon · 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
Potential organized fraud in ACM/IEEE computer architecture conferences
T. N. Vijaykumar · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
Mitigating manipulation in peer review via randomized reviewer assignments
Steven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu, Nihar B. Shah, Vincent Conitzer, and Fei Fang · 2020
Later among the works it cites.
An overview of challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review
Nihar B Shah · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Collusion rings threaten the integrity of computer science research
Michael L Littman · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Making paper reviewing robust to bid manipulation attacks
Ruihan Wu, Chuan Guo, Felix Wu, Rahul Kidambi, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Weinberger · 2021
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.
Expert suggestion for conference program committees
Hong Diep Tran, Guillaume Cabanac, and Gilles Hubert · 2017
Cited alongside, same era.
K-loop free assignment in conference review systems
Longhua Guo, Jie Wu, Wei Chang, Jun Wu, and Jianhua Li · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Design and analysis of the NIPS 2016 review process
Nihar B Shah, Behzad Tabibian, Krikamol Muandet, Isabelle Guyon, and Ulrike Von Luxburg · 2018
Cited alongside, same era.
Niclas Boehmer, Robert Bredereck, and André Nichterlein · 2021
Later among the works it cites.
Matching papers and reviewers at large conferences
Kevin Leyton-Brown, Mausam, Yatin Nandwani, Hedayat Zarkoob, Chris Cameron, Neil Newman, and Dinesh Raghu · 2022
Closest in time.
A dataset on malicious paper bidding in peer review
Steven Jecmen, Minji Yoon, Vincent Conitzer, Nihar B. Shah, and Fei Fang · 2022
Closest in time.