Submission Responsibility Matters: Role-Aware Submission Quotas under Coauthorship

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.30285v1
• Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 13:27:14 GMT
• Title: Submission Responsibility Matters: Role-Aware Submission Quotas under Coauthorship
• Abstract summary: Author-level submission quotas are increasingly used to control peer-review load.<n>Recent coauthorship-sensitive quota rules conflate review burden, authorship credit, and submission responsibility.<n>We propose a role-aware quota framework that assigns author-specific quota costs based on constrained roles.
• Score: 17.658093330392052
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Author-level submission quotas are increasingly used to control growing peer-review load. Recent coauthorship-sensitive quota rules improve over fixed per-author limits by reducing the quota cost of multi-author submissions, often using harmonic authorship-credit models to prevent simple author-list padding. However, these rules conflate three distinct quantities: review burden, authorship credit, and submission responsibility. As a result, they can penalize genuine solo-authored work, treat all coauthors as equally responsible for a submission, and create bottlenecks for student-led papers when a faculty advisor appears on multiple unrelated submissions. We argue that submission quotas should be designed around the responsibility structure of a paper rather than only its number of coauthors. We formalize desiderata for quota rules, including venue-load control, padding resistance, role sensitivity, solo neutrality, and student non-blocking. We then propose a role-aware quota framework that assigns author-specific quota costs based on constrained roles such as lead author, regular coauthor, and designated advisor. The framework includes fixed, per-capita, and harmonic-style rules as special or limiting cases, while allowing venues to distinguish lead authors, corresponding authors, advisors, and peripheral contributors. We show how simple role constraints can preserve resistance to manipulation while avoiding several structural disadvantages of coauthor-symmetric quota rules. Our analysis suggests that role-aware quota mechanisms provide a more faithful and flexible foundation for managing peer-review load under modern collaborative authorship.

Related papers

• Bridging Auxiliary Constraints to Resolve Instruction Following in Large Reasoning Models [52.87406450655783]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in many tasks, yet they struggle with reliably following multiple instructions.<n>We formalize this challenge as the Constraint Adherence Problem (CAP)<n>This paper introduces a novel framework that addresses CAP by representing instructions as a structured knowledge graph of constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T13:23:28Z)
• Citation-Closure Retrieval and Per-Rule Attribution for Real-World Regulatory Compliance Question Answering [54.97384993676565]
  We formalize Regulatory Compliance QA with RegOps-Bench, a novel benchmark featuring an Operational Knowledge Graph derived from complex national R&D regulations.<n>RefWalk traverses cross-document citations, fuses multi-view candidates via max-based aggregation, and enforces per-rule attribution to explicitly map claims to sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T10:38:38Z)
• Interpretation, Learning, and Empathy as One Constraint: A Residual-Adequacy Architecture with Accountable Abstention [0.0]
  We develop a small cognitive architecture in which limits arise from a single quantity.<n>An Interpretation-Decision Unit (IDU) interprets a content vector through a family of regimes and decides which actions it licenses.<n>We prove the unit is total and deterministic: for any content and fixed configuration it halts in finitely many bounded-cost steps with a unique terminal witness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T10:57:28Z)
• Quantifying the Statistical Effect of Rubric Modifications on Human-Autorater Agreement [50.34437999083224]
  Autoraters are increasingly used for evaluation and automated moderation content.<n>There is limited statistical analysis of how modifications in a rubric presented to both humans and autoraters affect their score agreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T13:55:11Z)
• When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee? [73.47745294608072]
  We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level.<n>We use two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T08:03:32Z)
• Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review [53.99984738447279]
  Recent work frames this task as automatic text generation, underusing author expertise and intent.<n>We introduce REspGen, a generation framework that integrates explicit author input, multi-attribute control, and evaluation-guided refinement.<n>To support this formulation, we construct Re$3$Align, the first large-scale dataset of aligned review-response--revision triplets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T14:07:10Z)
• Which Coauthor Should I Nominate in My 99 ICLR Submissions? A Mathematical Analysis of the ICLR 2026 Reciprocal Reviewer Nomination Policy [11.011505065410354]
  ICLR 2026 introduced a reviewer nomination policy: each submission must nominate one of its authors as a reviewer, and any paper nominating an irresponsible reviewer is desk-rejected.<n>We formalize and analyze three variants of the desk-rejection risk minimization problem.<n>We then introduce hard and soft nomination limit variants that constrain how many papers may nominate the same author, preventing widespread failures if one author is irresponsible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-17T01:21:29Z)
• Quantifying Misattribution Unfairness in Authorship Attribution [18.055643489884552]
  Authorship misattribution can have profound consequences in real life.<n>Standard evaluation measures for authorship attribution systems do not explicitly account for this notion of fairness.<n>We introduce a simple measure, Misattribution Unfairness Index (MAUIk), which is based on how often authors are ranked in the top k for texts they did not write.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T23:28:24Z)
• Dissecting Submission Limit in Desk-Rejections: A Mathematical Analysis of Fairness in AI Conference Policies [24.570596184292384]
  We propose an optimization-based fairness-aware desk-rejection mechanism.<n>We prove that optimizing individual fairness is NP-hard, whereas group fairness can be efficiently optimized via linear programming.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-02T06:29:23Z)
• 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)
• Controllable Summarization with Constrained Markov Decision Process [50.04321779376415]
  We study controllable text summarization which allows users to gain control on a particular attribute. We propose a novel training framework based on Constrained Markov Decision Process (CMDP) Our framework can be applied to control important attributes of summarization, including length, covered entities, and abstractiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-07T09:12:53Z)

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.