arXiv:2412.14351cs.CLcs.AI2024-12被引 2
用早期引用预测论文影响力，比期刊档次更准。
Is Peer-Reviewing Worth the Effort?
- 把审稿有效性转为预测任务，用早期引用判断未来影响力。
- 实证发现早期引用的预测力显著强于期刊名称。
- 提出应对投稿量大、审稿人不足的优化建议。
同行评审能否有效识别重要论文？我们将此问题视为一个预测任务：能否基于论文发表的会议/期刊（venue）和“早期引用”（发表后短期内的引用数）预测其未来高被引表现？研究发现，早期引用的预测能力显著优于期刊档次。最后，针对投稿量激增与合格审稿人短缺两大挑战，提出切实可行的改进方案。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
How effective is peer-reviewing in identifying important papers? We treat this question as a forecasting task. Can we predict which papers will be highly cited in the future based on venue and "early returns" (citations soon after publication)? We show early returns are more predictive than venue. Finally, we end with constructive suggestions to address scaling challenges: (a) too many submissions and (b) too few qualified reviewers.
同行评审论文预测引用分析
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。