How to keep bad papers out of conferences (with minimum reviewer effort)

Authors:
Jonathan Anderson;Frank Stajano;Robert N. M. Watson
Affiliations:
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK;Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK;Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Venue:
SP'11 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Security Protocols
Year:
2011

Citing 5
Cited 0

Risks of monoculture

Communications of the ACM - Homeland security
A mathematical theory of citing

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
ArnetMiner: extraction and mining of academic social networks

Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
Monoculture

IEEE Security and Privacy
Social Network Extraction of Academic Researchers

ICDM '07 Proceedings of the 2007 Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data Mining

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Reviewing conference submissions is both labour-intensive and diffuse. A lack of focus leads to reviewers spending much of their scarce time on papers which will not be accepted, which can prevent them from identifying several classes of problems with papers that will be. We identify opportunities for automation in the review process and propose protocols which allow human reviewers to better focus their limited time and attention, making it easier to select only the best "genetic" material to incorporate into their conference's "DNA." Some of the protocols that we propose are difficult to "game" without uneconomic investment on the part of the attacker, and successfully attacking others requires attackers to provide a positive social benefit to the wider research community.