arXiv:2505.04966cs.AIcs.CY2025-05ICML综述被引 38

AI顶会审稿危机需双向反馈与评审激励,提升质量与责任

Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards

  • 建立作者反向评价审稿的双阶段机制,减少报复行为
  • 引入系统性评审奖励,激励高质量审稿行为
  • 适合关注学术生态可持续性的研究者与会议组织者

大型人工智能会议面临前所未有的审稿挑战,论文投稿量已超过每届10,000篇,审稿质量与评审责任问题日益突出。本文主张将传统单向审稿转变为双向反馈机制:作者可评估审稿质量,审稿人则获得正式认证。当前审稿系统涉及作者、审稿人与会议三方,均需承担责任。但作者问题依赖政策与检测工具,伦理问题需自我反思。因此本文聚焦于通过两项机制改革评审责任:(1)双阶段双向审稿系统,允许作者评价审稿并最小化报复风险;(2)系统性审稿激励机制,鼓励高质量评审。呼吁学术界重视此问题并推动制度革新。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

The peer review process in major artificial intelligence (AI) conferences faces unprecedented challenges with the surge of paper submissions (exceeding 10,000 submissions per venue), accompanied by growing concerns over review quality and reviewer responsibility. This position paper argues for the need to transform the traditional one-way review system into a bi-directional feedback loop where authors evaluate review quality and reviewers earn formal accreditation, creating an accountability framework that promotes a sustainable, high-quality peer review system. The current review system can be viewed as an interaction between three parties: the authors, reviewers, and system (i.e., conference), where we posit that all three parties share responsibility for the current problems. However, issues with authors can only be addressed through policy enforcement and detection tools, and ethical concerns can only be corrected through self-reflection. As such, this paper focuses on reforming reviewer accountability with systematic rewards through two key mechanisms: (1) a two-stage bi-directional review system that allows authors to evaluate reviews while minimizing retaliatory behavior, (2)a systematic reviewer reward system that incentivizes quality reviewing. We ask for the community's strong interest in these problems and the reforms that are needed to enhance the peer review process.

学术评审科研生态机制设计

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。