Design and Analysis of the NIPS 2016 Review Process

August 31, 2017 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› Journal of machine learning research

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Nihar B. Shah, Behzad Tabibian, Krikamol Muandet, Isabelle Guyon, Ulrike von Luxburg arXiv ID 1708.09794 Category cs.DL: Digital Libraries Cross-listed cs.LG, cs.SI, stat.ML Citations 108 Venue Journal of machine learning research Last Checked 1 month ago
Abstract
Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) is a top-tier annual conference in machine learning. The 2016 edition of the conference comprised more than 2,400 paper submissions, 3,000 reviewers, and 8,000 attendees. This represents a growth of nearly 40% in terms of submissions, 96% in terms of reviewers, and over 100% in terms of attendees as compared to the previous year. The massive scale as well as rapid growth of the conference calls for a thorough quality assessment of the peer-review process and novel means of improvement. In this paper, we analyze several aspects of the data collected during the review process, including an experiment investigating the efficacy of collecting ordinal rankings from reviewers. Our goal is to check the soundness of the review process, and provide insights that may be useful in the design of the review process of subsequent conferences.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Digital Libraries

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted