Peer Reviewing Sergej Sizov

The Cycle in Which we Live… IMPACT Research Existing Researchers Publications New Researchers People & Money Dissemination Practice

Peer review: general idea

Peer review: general idea Anonymous Independent Impartial

Copy of the paper is sent to the co-chairs How it works Copy of the paper is sent to the co-chairs Conference System Email Co-chairs send to reviewers Reviewers point out: Problems/weakness Suggestions for improvements Grade

Peer review given: set of reviewers V = {v1,…,vk }, confidence grades res(vi ,d ) for submission d collective result (restrictivity by thresholds t1 and t2 , tuning by weights w(vi ) ):

General idea: accurate restrictive decisions submissions A R committee decision A AA AR A0 Bad accepted papers E R O real quality R RA RR R0 Irrelevant Junk JA JR J0 reduction tradeoff !

Peer reviewing is not perfect! Conclusion Peer reviewing is not perfect! but it increases the probability that weakness will be identified and improve.