Abstract

Peer review is our best tool for judging the quality of conferencesubmissions, but it is becoming increasingly spurious. We argue that a part ofthe problem is that the reviewers and area chairs face a poorly defined taskforcing apples-to-oranges comparisons. There are several potential waysforward, but the key difficulty is creating the incentives and mechanisms fortheir consistent implementation in the NLP community.

 

Quick Read (beta)