@inproceedings{kumar-etal-2023-reviewers,
title = "When Reviewers Lock Horns: Finding Disagreements in Scientific Peer Reviews",
author = "Kumar, Sandeep and
Ghosal, Tirthankar and
Ekbal, Asif",
editor = "Bouamor, Houda and
Pino, Juan and
Bali, Kalika",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
month = dec,
year = "2023",
address = "Singapore",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.1038",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1038",
pages = "16693--16704",
abstract = "To this date, the efficacy of the scientific publishing enterprise fundamentally rests on the strength of the peer review process. The journal editor or the conference chair primarily relies on the expert reviewers{'} assessment, $\textit{identify points of agreement and disagreement}$ and try to reach a consensus to make a fair and informed decision on whether to accept or reject a paper. However, with the escalating number of submissions requiring review, especially in top-tier Artificial Intelligence (AI) conferences, the editor/chair, among many other works, invests a significant, sometimes stressful effort to mitigate reviewer disagreements. Here in this work, we introduce a novel task of automatically identifying contradictions among reviewers on a given article. To this end, we introduce $\textit{ContraSciView}$, a comprehensive review-pair contradiction dataset on around 8.5k papers (with around 28k review pairs containing nearly 50k review pair comments) from the open review-based ICLR and NeurIPS conferences. We further propose a baseline model that detects contradictory statements from the review pairs. To the best of our knowledge, we make the first attempt to identify disagreements among peer reviewers automatically. We make our dataset and code public for further investigations.",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="kumar-etal-2023-reviewers">
<titleInfo>
<title>When Reviewers Lock Horns: Finding Disagreements in Scientific Peer Reviews</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sandeep</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Kumar</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Tirthankar</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ghosal</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Asif</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ekbal</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2023-12</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Houda</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bouamor</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Juan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Pino</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kalika</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bali</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Singapore</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>To this date, the efficacy of the scientific publishing enterprise fundamentally rests on the strength of the peer review process. The journal editor or the conference chair primarily relies on the expert reviewers’ assessment, identify points of agreement and disagreement and try to reach a consensus to make a fair and informed decision on whether to accept or reject a paper. However, with the escalating number of submissions requiring review, especially in top-tier Artificial Intelligence (AI) conferences, the editor/chair, among many other works, invests a significant, sometimes stressful effort to mitigate reviewer disagreements. Here in this work, we introduce a novel task of automatically identifying contradictions among reviewers on a given article. To this end, we introduce ContraSciView, a comprehensive review-pair contradiction dataset on around 8.5k papers (with around 28k review pairs containing nearly 50k review pair comments) from the open review-based ICLR and NeurIPS conferences. We further propose a baseline model that detects contradictory statements from the review pairs. To the best of our knowledge, we make the first attempt to identify disagreements among peer reviewers automatically. We make our dataset and code public for further investigations.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">kumar-etal-2023-reviewers</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1038</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.1038</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2023-12</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>16693</start>
<end>16704</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T When Reviewers Lock Horns: Finding Disagreements in Scientific Peer Reviews
%A Kumar, Sandeep
%A Ghosal, Tirthankar
%A Ekbal, Asif
%Y Bouamor, Houda
%Y Pino, Juan
%Y Bali, Kalika
%S Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
%D 2023
%8 December
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Singapore
%F kumar-etal-2023-reviewers
%X To this date, the efficacy of the scientific publishing enterprise fundamentally rests on the strength of the peer review process. The journal editor or the conference chair primarily relies on the expert reviewers’ assessment, identify points of agreement and disagreement and try to reach a consensus to make a fair and informed decision on whether to accept or reject a paper. However, with the escalating number of submissions requiring review, especially in top-tier Artificial Intelligence (AI) conferences, the editor/chair, among many other works, invests a significant, sometimes stressful effort to mitigate reviewer disagreements. Here in this work, we introduce a novel task of automatically identifying contradictions among reviewers on a given article. To this end, we introduce ContraSciView, a comprehensive review-pair contradiction dataset on around 8.5k papers (with around 28k review pairs containing nearly 50k review pair comments) from the open review-based ICLR and NeurIPS conferences. We further propose a baseline model that detects contradictory statements from the review pairs. To the best of our knowledge, we make the first attempt to identify disagreements among peer reviewers automatically. We make our dataset and code public for further investigations.
%R 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1038
%U https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.1038
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1038
%P 16693-16704
Markdown (Informal)
[When Reviewers Lock Horns: Finding Disagreements in Scientific Peer Reviews](https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.1038) (Kumar et al., EMNLP 2023)
ACL