Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignments

29 Jun 2020Steven JecmenHanrui ZhangRyan LiuNihar B. ShahVincent ConitzerFei Fang

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 part of quid-pro-quo arrangements with the authors; (ii) "torpedo reviewing," where reviewers deliberately attempt to get assigned to certain papers that they dislike in order to reject them; (iii) reviewer de-anonymization on release of the similarities and the reviewer-assignment code. On the conceptual front, we identify connections between these three problems and present a framework that brings all these challenges under a common umbrella... (read more)

PDF Abstract


No code implementations yet. Submit your code now


Results from the Paper

  Submit results from this paper to get state-of-the-art GitHub badges and help the community compare results to other papers.

Methods used in the Paper

🤖 No Methods Found Help the community by adding them if they're not listed; e.g. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition uses ResNet