587 citations · 2.1k across the 58 of their papers we have counts for
9 papers · 1 filter
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…
Uncovering Latent Biases in Text: Method and Application to Peer Review
Emaad Manzoor, Nihar B. Shah
Quantifying systematic disparities in numerical quantities such as employment rates and wages between population subgroups provides compelling evidence for the existence of societa…
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…
A SUPER* Algorithm to Optimize Paper Bidding in Peer Review
Tanner Fiez, Nihar B. Shah, Lillian Ratliff
A number of applications involve sequential arrival of users, and require showing each user an ordering of items. A prime example (which forms the focus of this paper) is the biddi…