Dispute Resolution in Peer Review with Abstract Argumentation and OWL DL

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.14258v1
• Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 12:21:25 GMT
• Title: Dispute Resolution in Peer Review with Abstract Argumentation and OWL DL
• Authors: Ildar Baimuratov, Elena Lisanyuk, Dmitry Prokudin,
• Abstract summary: This research addresses challenges by applying formal methods from argumentation theory to support transparent and unbiased dispute resolution in peer review.<n>We conceptualize scientific peer review as a single mixed argumentative dispute between manuscript authors and reviewers and formalize it using abstract argumentation frameworks.<n>We validate our approach by annotating a corpus of scientific peer reviews with abstract argumentation frameworks and applying a proof of concept to resolve the disputes.
• Score: 0.12289361708127876
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The peer review process for scientific publications faces significant challenges due to the increasing volume of submissions and inherent reviewer biases. While artificial intelligence offers the potential to facilitate the process, it also risks perpetuating biases present in training data. This research addresses these challenges by applying formal methods from argumentation theory to support transparent and unbiased dispute resolution in peer review. Specifically, we conceptualize scientific peer review as a single mixed argumentative dispute between manuscript authors and reviewers and formalize it using abstract argumentation frameworks. We analyze the resulting peer review argumentation frameworks from semantic, graph-theoretic, and computational perspectives, showing that they are well-founded and decidable in linear time. These frameworks are then implemented using OWL DL and resolved with reasoning engines. We validate our approach by annotating a corpus of scientific peer reviews with abstract argumentation frameworks and applying a proof of concept to resolve the annotated disputes. The results demonstrate that integrating our method could enhance the quality of published work by providing a more rigorous and systematic approach to accounting reviewer arguments.

Related papers

• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [61.374437855024844]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving 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)
• GLIMPSE: Pragmatically Informative Multi-Document Summarization for Scholarly Reviews [25.291384842659397]
  We introduce sys, a summarization method designed to offer a concise yet comprehensive overview of scholarly reviews. Unlike traditional consensus-based methods, sys extracts both common and unique opinions from the reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T15:27:01Z)
• Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation [19.799266797193344]
  Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques. We show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T07:27:27Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.<n>Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Scientific Opinion Summarization: Paper Meta-review Generation Dataset, Methods, and Evaluation [55.00687185394986]
  We propose the task of scientific opinion summarization, where research paper reviews are synthesized into meta-reviews. We introduce the ORSUM dataset covering 15,062 paper meta-reviews and 57,536 paper reviews from 47 conferences. Our experiments show that (1) human-written summaries do not always satisfy all necessary criteria such as depth of discussion, and identifying consensus and controversy for the specific domain, and (2) the combination of task decomposition and iterative self-refinement shows strong potential for enhancing the opinions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:33:35Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• EviDR: Evidence-Emphasized Discrete Reasoning for Reasoning Machine Reading Comprehension [39.970232108247394]
  Reasoning machine reading comprehension (R-MRC) aims to answer complex questions that require discrete reasoning based on text. Previous end-to-end methods that achieve state-of-the-art performance rarely solve the problem by paying enough emphasis on the modeling of evidence. We propose an evidence-emphasized discrete reasoning approach (EviDR), in which sentence and clause level evidence is first detected based on distant supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-18T06:49:58Z)
• Argument Mining Driven Analysis of Peer-Reviews [4.552676857046446]
  We propose an Argument Mining based approach for the assistance of editors, meta-reviewers, and reviewers. One of our findings is that arguments used in the peer-review process differ from arguments in other domains making the transfer of pre-trained models difficult. We provide the community with a new peer-review dataset from different computer science conferences with annotated arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-10T16:06:21Z)

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.