15 citations · 30 across the 5 of their papers we have counts for
7 papers
Integrating Rankings into Quantized Scores in Peer Review
Yusha Liu, Yichong Xu, Nihar B. Shah +1
In peer review, reviewers are usually asked to provide scores for the papers. The scores are then used by Area Chairs or Program Chairs in various ways in the decision-making proce…
A Large Scale Randomized Controlled Trial on Herding in Peer-Review Discussions
Ivan Stelmakh, Charvi Rastogi, Nihar B. Shah +2
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 decisi…
A Novice-Reviewer Experiment to Address Scarcity of Qualified Reviewers in Large Conferences
Ivan Stelmakh, Nihar B. Shah, Aarti Singh +1
Conference peer review constitutes a human-computation process whose importance cannot be overstated: not only it identifies the best submissions for acceptance, but, ultimately, i…
Prior and Prejudice: The Novice Reviewers' Bias against Resubmissions in Conference Peer Review
Ivan Stelmakh, Nihar B. Shah, Aarti Singh +1
Modern machine learning and computer science conferences are experiencing a surge in the number of submissions that challenges the quality of peer review as the number of competent…
Catch Me if I Can: Detecting Strategic Behaviour in Peer Assessment
Ivan Stelmakh, Nihar B. Shah, Aarti Singh
We consider the issue of strategic behaviour in various peer-assessment tasks, including peer grading of exams or homeworks and peer review in hiring or promotions. When a peer-ass…
On Testing for Biases in Peer Review
Ivan Stelmakh, Nihar B. Shah, Aarti Singh
We consider the issue of biases in scholarly research, specifically, in peer review. There is a long standing debate on whether exposing author identities to reviewers induces bias…