Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.04966v1
• Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 05:51:48 GMT
• Title: Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards
• Authors: Jaeho Kim, Yunseok Lee, Seulki Lee,
• Abstract summary: This paper argues for the need to transform the traditional one-way review system into a bi-directional feedback loop.<n>Authors evaluate review quality and reviewers earn formal accreditation, creating an accountability framework.
• Score: 2.8239108914343305
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The peer review process in major artificial intelligence (AI) conferences faces unprecedented challenges with the surge of paper submissions (exceeding 10,000 submissions per venue), accompanied by growing concerns over review quality and reviewer responsibility. This position paper argues for the need to transform the traditional one-way review system into a bi-directional feedback loop where authors evaluate review quality and reviewers earn formal accreditation, creating an accountability framework that promotes a sustainable, high-quality peer review system. The current review system can be viewed as an interaction between three parties: the authors, reviewers, and system (i.e., conference), where we posit that all three parties share responsibility for the current problems. However, issues with authors can only be addressed through policy enforcement and detection tools, and ethical concerns can only be corrected through self-reflection. As such, this paper focuses on reforming reviewer accountability with systematic rewards through two key mechanisms: (1) a two-stage bi-directional review system that allows authors to evaluate reviews while minimizing retaliatory behavior, (2)a systematic reviewer reward system that incentivizes quality reviewing. We ask for the community's strong interest in these problems and the reforms that are needed to enhance the peer review process.

Related papers

• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [61.374437855024844]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving fine-grained aspects from a corpus of peer reviews.<n>We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:14:42Z)
• On the Role of Feedback in Test-Time Scaling of Agentic AI Workflows [71.92083784393418]
  Agentic AI (systems that autonomously plan and act) are becoming widespread, yet their task success rate on complex tasks remains low.<n>Inference-time alignment relies on three components: sampling, evaluation, and feedback.<n>We introduce Iterative Agent Decoding (IAD), a procedure that repeatedly inserts feedback extracted from different forms of critiques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T17:40:47Z)
• Understanding and Supporting Peer Review Using AI-reframed Positive Summary [18.686807993563168]
  This study explored the impact of appending an automatically generated positive summary to the peer reviews of a writing task.<n>We found that adding an AI-reframed positive summary to otherwise harsh feedback increased authors' critique acceptance.<n>We discuss the implications of using AI in peer feedback, focusing on how it can influence critique acceptance and support research communities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T11:22:12Z)
• Paper Quality Assessment based on Individual Wisdom Metrics from Open Peer Review [3.802113616844045]
  This study proposes a data-driven framework for enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of scientific peer review through an open, bottom-up process that estimates reviewer quality.<n>We analyze open peer review data from two major scientific conferences, and demonstrate that reviewer-specific quality scores significantly improve the reliability of paper quality estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-22T17:00:27Z)
• DecentPeeR: A Self-Incentivised & Inclusive Decentralized Peer Review System [11.477670199123335]
  We show that our system, DecentPeeR, incentivizes reviewers to behave according to the rules, i.e., it has a unique Nash equilibrium in which virtuous behavior is rewarded.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T09:13:16Z)
• Analysis of the ICML 2023 Ranking Data: Can Authors' Opinions of Their Own Papers Assist Peer Review in Machine Learning? [52.00419656272129]
  We conducted an experiment during the 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) We received 1,342 rankings, each from a distinct author, pertaining to 2,592 submissions. We focus on the Isotonic Mechanism, which calibrates raw review scores using author-provided rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T01:51:23Z)
• Rethinking the Evaluation of Dialogue Systems: Effects of User Feedback on Crowdworkers and LLMs [57.16442740983528]
  In ad-hoc retrieval, evaluation relies heavily on user actions, including implicit feedback. The role of user feedback in annotators' assessment of turns in a conversational perception has been little studied. We focus on how the evaluation of task-oriented dialogue systems ( TDSs) is affected by considering user feedback, explicit or implicit, as provided through the follow-up utterance of a turn being evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T16:45:50Z)
• Eliciting Honest Information From Authors Using Sequential Review [13.424398627546788]
  We propose a sequential review mechanism that can truthfully elicit the ranking information from authors. The key idea is to review the papers of an author in a sequence based on the provided ranking and conditioning the review of the next paper on the review scores of the previous papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-24T17:27:39Z)
• How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors' Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions? [87.00095008723181]
  Authors have roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers. Female authors exhibit a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors. At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-22T15:59:30Z)
• Ranking Scientific Papers Using Preference Learning [48.78161994501516]
  We cast it as a paper ranking problem based on peer review texts and reviewer scores. We introduce a novel, multi-faceted generic evaluation framework for making final decisions based on peer reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-02T19:41:47Z)
• Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Review [11.413240461538589]
  We propose a novel peer prediction mechanism (H-DIPP) building on recent work in the information elicitation literature. The revenue raised in the submission stage auction is used to pay reviewers based on the quality of their reviews in the reviewing stage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-27T23:47:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.