mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Rejoinder: The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review

arXiv 2605.25172 ↗First posted 24 May 2026stat.AP cs.DL cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This article is the rejoinder to ``The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review,'' to appear in the Journal of the American Statistical Association with discussion. To address the practical and theoretical points raised by the discussants, we organize our response around four core themes: (i) formulating peer review as a statistical estimation problem; (ii) mitigating equity and strategic concerns in the deployment of the Isotonic Mechanism; (iii) incorporating complementary signals such as reviewer rankings and structured metadata; and (iv) exploring a human-centered framework for peer review in the era of generative AI.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2026.

Builds on

5 of 19 references.

References · 5

  1. 2023Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysiscited by 200
  2. 2022How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors' Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions?cited by 6
  3. 2023An Isotonic Mechanism for Overlapping Ownershipcited by 6
  4. 2025How to Find Fantastic AI Papers: Self-Rankings as a Powerful Predictor of Scientific Impact Beyond Peer Reviewcited by 4
  5. 2026Recommending Best Paper Awards for ML/AI Conferences via the Isotonic Mechanismcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.