| An algorithm for automated rating of reviewers |
| Full text |
Pdf
(140 KB)
|
| Source
|
International Conference on Digital Libraries
archive
Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries
table of contents
Roanoke, Virginia, United States
Pages: 381 - 387
Year of Publication: 2001
ISBN:1-58113-345-6
|
|
Authors
|
|
Tracy Riggs
|
Division of Computer Science, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
|
|
Robert Wilensky
|
Division of Computer Science, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
|
|
| Sponsor |
|
| Publisher |
|
| Bibliometrics |
Downloads (6 Weeks): 17, Downloads (12 Months): 57, Citation Count: 6
|
|
|
Warning: The download time has expired please click on the item to try again.
ABSTRACT
The current system for scholarly information dissemination may be amen able to significant improvement. In particular, going from the current system of journal publication to one of self-distributed documents offers significant cost and timeliness advantages. A major concern with such alternatives is how to provide the value currently afforded by the peer review system.Here we propose a mechanism that could plausibly supply such value. In the peer review system, papers are judged meritorious if good reviewers give them good reviews. In its place, we propose a collaborative filtering algorithm which automatically rates reviewers, and incorporates the quality of the reviewer into the metric of merit for the paper. Such a system seems to provide all the benefits of the current peer review system, while at the same time being much more flexible.We have implemented a number of parameterized variations of this algorithm, and tested them on data available from a quite different application. Our initial experiments suggest that the algorithm is in fact ranking reviewers reasonably.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
ACM-SIGIR 1999 Workshopon Recommender Systems: Algorithms and Evaluation. http://www.csee.umbc.edu/ian/sigir99- rec/summary.html.
|
| |
2
|
The Berkeley Electronic Press. http://www.bepress.com/.
|
| |
3
|
CiteSeer.http://citeseer.nj.nec.com.
|
| |
4
|
Collaborative filtering. http://www.sims.ber eley.edu/resources/collab/.
|
| |
5
|
The UC Berkeley Digital Library Project. http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu.
|
| |
6
|
C.Avery, P. Resnick, and R. Zeckhauser. The Market for Evaluations. American Economic Review 89(3):564-584,1999.
|
 |
7
|
|
| |
8
|
J. Canny. Personal communication with the authors.
|
 |
9
|
|
 |
10
|
Jonathan L. Herlocker , Joseph A. Konstan , Al Borchers , John Riedl, An algorithmic framework for performing collaborative filtering, Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, p.230-237, August 15-19, 1999, Berkeley, California, United States
[doi> 10.1145/312624.312682]
|
| |
11
|
|
| |
12
|
G. Z. A. Moukas and P. Maes. Collaborative Reputation Mechanisms in Electronic Mar etplaces. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 1999.
|
 |
13
|
|
 |
14
|
|
 |
15
|
J. Ben Schafer , Joseph Konstan , John Riedi, Recommender systems in e-commerce, Proceedings of the 1st ACM conference on Electronic commerce, p.158-166, November 03-05, 1999, Denver, Colorado, United States
[doi> 10.1145/336992.337035]
|
| |
16
|
R. Smith. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ, 318:23-27, 1999.
|
| |
17
|
C. Tenopir and D. W. King. Trends in scientific scholarly journal publishing in the United States. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 28:135-170, 1997.
|
 |
18
|
|
| |
19
|
H. R. Varian. The Future of Electronic Journals. Technology and Scholarly Communication 1999.
|
CITED BY 6
|
|
John Weatherley , Tamara Sumner , Michael Khoo , Michael Wright , Marcel Hoffmann, Partnership reviewing: a cooperative approach for peer review of complex educational resources, Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, July 14-18, 2002, Portland, Oregon, USA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|