1. Peer Reviewing
Sergej Sizov

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

3. Peer review: general idea

4. Peer review: general idea
Anonymous
Independent
Impartial

5. 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
Co-chairs send to reviewers
Reviewers point out:
Problems/weakness
Suggestions for improvements
Grade

6. 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 ) ):

7. 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 !

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