mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

You Are the Best Reviewer of Your Own Papers: An Owner-Assisted Scoring Mechanism

arXiv 2110.14802 ↗First posted 27 Oct 2021cs.LG cs.GT math.OCcited by 18

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

I consider a setting where reviewers offer very noisy scores for several items for the selection of high-quality ones (e.g., peer review of large conference proceedings), whereas the owner of these items knows the true underlying scores but prefers not to provide this information. To address this withholding of information, in this paper, I introduce the Isotonic Mechanism, a simple and efficient approach to improving imprecise raw scores by leveraging certain information that the owner is incentivized to provide. This mechanism takes the ranking of the items from best to worst provided by the owner as input, in addition to the raw scores provided by the reviewers. It reports the adjusted scores for the items by solving a convex optimization problem. Under certain conditions, I show that the owner's optimal strategy is to honestly report the true ranking of the items to her best knowledge in order to maximize the expected utility. Moreover, I prove that the adjusted scores provided by this owner-assisted mechanism are significantly more accurate than the raw scores provided by the reviewers. This paper concludes with several extensions of the Isotonic Mechanism and some refinements of the mechanism for practical consideration.

Key facts. Cited by 18 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Oct 2021.

Builds on

12 of 31 references.

References · 12

  1. 2020Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignmentscited by 38
  2. 2014SLOPE - Adaptive variable selection via convex optimizationcited by 33
  3. 2020What Can We Do to Improve Peer Review in NLP?cited by 32
  4. 2020A Novice-Reviewer Experiment to Address Scarcity of Qualified Reviewers in Large Conferencescited by 16
  5. 2019On Testing for Biases in Peer Reviewcited by 15
  6. 2016Strategyproof Peer Selection using Randomization, Partitioning, and Apportionmentcited by 12
  7. 2018Loss Functions, Axioms, and Peer Reviewcited by 10
  8. 2018Avoiding a Tragedy of the Commons in the Peer Review Processcited by 10
  9. 2020Debiasing Evaluations That are Biased by Evaluationscited by 9
  10. 2020PeerNomination: Relaxing Exactness for Increased Accuracy in Peer Selectioncited by 6
  11. 2015Arbitrariness of peer review: A Bayesian analysis of the NIPS experimentcited by 4
  12. 2020Incentive-Compatible Selection Mechanisms for Forestscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 4; 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 7.

18 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Studycited by 40
  2. 2025Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewardscited by 34
  3. 2025From Replication to Redesign: Exploring Pairwise Comparisons for LLM-Based Peer Reviewcited by 11
  4. 2022Experimental Standards for Deep Learning in Natural Language Processing Researchcited by 9
  5. 2024The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Reviewcited by 7
  6. 2023Isotonic Mechanism for Exponential Family Estimation in Machine Learning Peer Reviewcited by 6
  7. 2022How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors' Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions?cited by 5
  8. 2026The Agentic Researcher: A Practical Guide to AI-Assisted Research in Mathematics and Machine Learningcited by 4
  9. 2025How to Find Fantastic AI Papers: Self-Rankings as a Powerful Predictor of Scientific Impact Beyond Peer Reviewcited by 3
  10. 2023Ranking Differential Privacycited by 1
  11. 2023Eliciting Honest Information From Authors Using Sequential Reviewcited by 0
  12. 2025From Authors to Reviewers: Leveraging Rankings to Improve Peer Reviewcited by 0
6 more
  1. 2026Recommending Best Paper Awards for ML/AI Conferences via the Isotonic Mechanismcited by 0
  2. 2026Reimagining Peer Review Process Through Multi-Agent Mechanism Designcited by 0
  3. 2026Allocate Marginal Reviews to Borderline Papers Using LLM Comparative Rankingcited by 0
  4. 2026CAIRO: Decoupling Order from Scale in Regressioncited by 0
  5. 2026Aggregate-then-Calibrate for Human-centered Assessment with Theoretical Guaranteescited by 0
  6. 2026Position: Want Better ML Reviews? Stop Asking Nicely and Start Incentivizing with a Credit Systemcited by 0