Paper detail

Diverse Reviewer Suggestion for Extending Conference Program Committees

Automated reviewer recommendation for scientific conferences currently relies on the assumption that the program committee has the necessary expertise to handle all submissions. However, topical discrepancies between received submissions and reviewer candidates might lead to unreliable reviews or overburdening of reviewers, and may result in the rejection of high-quality papers. In this work, we present DiveRS, an explainable flow-based reviewer assignment approach, which automatically generates reviewer assignments as well as suggestions for extending the current program committee with new reviewer candidates. Our algorithm focuses on the diversity of the set of reviewers assigned to papers, which has been mostly disregarded in prior work. Specifically, we consider diversity in terms of professional background, location and seniority. Using two real world conference datasets for evaluation, we show that DiveRS improves diversity compared to both real assignments and a state-of-the-art flow-based reviewer assignment approach. Further, based on human assessments by former PC chairs, we find that DiveRS can effectively trade off some of the topical suitability in order to construct more diverse reviewer assignments.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.