Summary of Is Peer-reviewing Worth the Effort?, by Kenneth Church et al.
Is Peer-Reviewing Worth the Effort?
by Kenneth Church, Raman Chandrasekar, John E. Ortega, Ibrahim Said Ahmad
First submitted to arxiv on: 18 Dec 2024
Categories
- Main: Computation and Language (cs.CL)
- Secondary: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
GrooveSquid.com Paper Summaries
GrooveSquid.com’s goal is to make artificial intelligence research accessible by summarizing AI papers in simpler terms. Each summary below covers the same AI paper, written at different levels of difficulty. The medium difficulty and low difficulty versions are original summaries written by GrooveSquid.com, while the high difficulty version is the paper’s original abstract. Feel free to learn from the version that suits you best!
| Summary difficulty | Written by | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| High | Paper authors | High Difficulty Summary Read the original abstract here |
| Medium | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Medium Difficulty Summary This paper investigates the effectiveness of peer-review in identifying important papers by treating it as a forecasting task. Researchers aimed to predict which papers would be highly cited in the future based on factors such as publication venue and early citation counts soon after publication. The study found that early returns are more predictive than venue, suggesting that the initial reception of a paper is a stronger indicator of its impact than where it was published. Additionally, the authors propose solutions to address challenges in scaling peer-review processes, including managing an influx of submissions and ensuring sufficient qualified reviewers. |
| Low | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Low Difficulty Summary This research tries to figure out if we can predict which papers will be really important by looking at how well they do when they first come out. They found that how much a paper is talked about soon after it’s published is a better indicator of its importance than where it was published in the first place. The authors also suggest ways to make the process of reviewing papers work better for a bigger number of submissions and reviewers. |
