23 citations · 32 across the 9 of their papers we have counts for
9 papers
On the Detection of Reviewer-Author Collusion Rings From Paper Bidding
Steven Jecmen, Nihar B. Shah, Fei Fang +1
A major threat to the peer-review systems of computer science conferences is the existence of "collusion rings" between reviewers. In such collusion rings, reviewers who have also…
A One-Size-Fits-All Approach to Improving Randomness in Paper Assignment
Yixuan Even Xu, Steven Jecmen, Zimeng Song +1
The assignment of papers to reviewers is a crucial part of the peer review processes of large publication venues, where organizers (e.g., conference program chairs) rely on algorit…
Testing for Reviewer Anchoring in Peer Review: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Ryan Liu, Steven Jecmen, Vincent Conitzer +2
Peer review frequently follows a process where reviewers first provide initial reviews, authors respond to these reviews, then reviewers update their reviews based on the authors'…
Counterfactual Evaluation of Peer-Review Assignment Policies
Martin Saveski, Steven Jecmen, Nihar B. Shah +1
Peer review assignment algorithms aim to match research papers to suitable expert reviewers, working to maximize the quality of the resulting reviews. A key challenge in designing…
Tradeoffs in Preventing Manipulation in Paper Bidding for Reviewer Assignment
Steven Jecmen, Nihar B. Shah, Fei Fang +1
Many conferences rely on paper bidding as a key component of their reviewer assignment procedure. These bids are then taken into account when assigning reviewers to help ensure tha…
A Dataset on Malicious Paper Bidding in Peer Review
Steven Jecmen, Minji Yoon, Vincent Conitzer +2
In conference peer review, reviewers are often asked to provide "bids" on each submitted paper that express their interest in reviewing that paper. A paper assignment algorithm the…
Strategyproofing Peer Assessment via Partitioning: The Price in Terms of Evaluators' Expertise
Komal Dhull, Steven Jecmen, Pravesh Kothari +1
Strategic behavior is a fundamental problem in a variety of real-world applications that require some form of peer assessment, such as peer grading of homeworks, grant proposal rev…
Near-Optimal Reviewer Splitting in Two-Phase Paper Reviewing and Conference Experiment Design
Steven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu +3
Many scientific conferences employ a two-phase paper review process, where some papers are assigned additional reviewers after the initial reviews are submitted. Many conferences a…
Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignments
Steven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu +3
We consider three important challenges in conference peer review: (i) reviewers maliciously attempting to get assigned to certain papers to provide positive reviews, possibly as pa…