mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

From Authors to Reviewers: Leveraging Rankings to Improve Peer Review

arXiv 2510.21726 ↗First posted 26 Sep 2025cs.IR cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This paper is a discussion of the 2025 JASA discussion paper by Su et al. (2025). We would like to congratulate the authors on conducting a comprehensive and insightful empirical investigation of the 2023 ICML ranking data. The review quality of machine learning (ML) conferences has become a big concern in recent years, due to the rapidly growing number of submitted manuscripts. In this discussion, we propose an approach alternative to Su et al. (2025) that leverages ranking information from reviewers rather than authors. We simulate review data that closely mimics the 2023 ICML conference submissions. Our results show that (i) incorporating ranking information from reviewers can significantly improve the evaluation of each paper's quality, often outperforming the use of ranking information from authors alone; and (ii) combining ranking information from both reviewers and authors yields the most accurate evaluation of submitted papers in most scenarios.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 7 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2025.

Builds on

4 of 7 references.

References · 4

  1. 2025Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewardscited by 34
  2. 2021You Are the Best Reviewer of Your Own Papers: An Owner-Assisted Scoring Mechanismcited by 18
  3. 2023Spectral Ranking Inferences based on General Multiway Comparisonscited by 11
  4. 2024The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Reviewcited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.