Are the confidence scores of reviewers consistent with the review content? Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Peer review is vital in academia for evaluating research quality. Top AI conferences use reviewer confidence scores to ensure review reliability, but existing studies lack fine-grained analysis of text-score consistency, potentially missing key details. This work assesses consistency at word, sentence, and aspect levels using deep learning and NLP conference review data. We employ deep learning to detect hedge sentences and aspects, then analyze report length, hedge word/sentence frequency, aspect mentions, and sentiment to evaluate text-score alignment. Correlation, significance, and regression tests examine confidence scores' impact on paper outcomes. Results show high text-score consistency across all levels, with regression revealing higher confidence scores correlate with paper rejection, validating expert assessments and peer review fairness.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 May 2025.
Builds on
13 of 47 references.
References · 13
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
- 2018A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applicationscited by 136
- 2014Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited referencescited by 64
- 2021Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?cited by 63
- 2022NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Reviewcited by 60
- 2021MReD: A Meta-Review Dataset for Structure-Controllable Text Generationcited by 42
- 2019Argument Mining for Understanding Peer Reviewscited by 41
- 2021DISAPERE: A Dataset for Discourse Structure in Peer Review Discussionscited by 36
- 2019Does My Rebuttal Matter? Insights from a Major NLP Conferencecited by 31
- 2021Measuring Sentence-Level and Aspect-Level (Un)certainty in Science Communicationscited by 27
- 2020An Open Review of OpenReview: A Critical Analysis of the Machine Learning Conference Review Processcited by 24
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 3.
4 papers.
- 2025SC4ANM: Identifying Optimal Section Combinations for Automated Novelty Prediction in Academic Paperscited by 8
- 2026PaperAudit-Bench: Benchmarking Error Detection in Research Papers for Critical Automated Peer Reviewcited by 3
- 2026APRES: An Agentic Paper Revision and Evaluation Systemcited by 3
- 2026Which Review Aspect Has a Greater Impact on the Duration of Open Peer Review in Multiple Rounds? -- Evidence from Nature Communicationscited by 1
- 2026Which Review Aspect Has a Greater Impact on the Duration of Open Peer Review in Multiple Rounds? -- Evidence from Nature Communications20 Jun 2026
- 2026APRES: An Agentic Paper Revision and Evaluation System3 Mar 2026
- 2026PaperAudit-Bench: Benchmarking Error Detection in Research Papers for Critical Automated Peer Review7 Jan 2026
- 2025SC4ANM: Identifying Optimal Section Combinations for Automated Novelty Prediction in Academic Papers22 May 2025