Paper rating vs. paper ranking

Abstract

Within the computer-science community, submitted conference papers are typically evaluated by means of rating, in two respects: First, individual reviewers are asked to provide their evaluations of papers by assigning a rating to each paper's overall quality. Second, program committees collectively rate each paper as being either worthy or unworthy of acceptance, according to the aggregate judgment of the committee members. This paper proposes an alternative approach to these two processes, based on rankings rather than ratings. It also presents experiences from employing rankings in PC discussions of a major CS conference.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.