A recommender system of reviewers and experts in reviewing problems

Protasiewicz, Jarosław; Pedrycz, Witold; Kozłowski, Marek; Dadas, Sławomir; Stanisławek, Tomasz; Kopacz, Agata; Gałźźewska, Małgorzata

doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2016.05.041

Cited by 72 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recommender systems have been used to recommend movies (Wu & Niu, 2015), research papers (Beel, Gipp, Langer, & Breitinger, 2015), collaborators (Yan & Guns, 2014), experts (Protasiewicz et al, 2016), reviewers (Basu, Cohen, Hirsh, & Nevill-Manning, 2001), citations (Caragea, Silvescu, Mitra, & Giles, 2013), and tags (Song, Zhang, & Giles, 2011).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendation of scholarly venues based on dynamic user interests

Alhoori

Furuta

2017

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ever-growing number of venues publishing academic work makes it difficult for researchers to identify venues that publish data and research most in line with their scholarly interests. A solution is needed, therefore, whereby researchers can identify information dissemination pathways in order to both access and contribute to an existing body of knowledge.In this study, we present a system to recommend scholarly venues rated in terms of relevance to a given researcher's current scholarly pursuits and interests. We collected our data from an academic social network and modeled researchers' scholarly reading behavior in order to propose a new and adaptive implicit rating technique for venues. We present a way to recommend relevant, specialized scholarly venues using these implicit ratings that can provide quick results, even for new researchers without a publication history and for emerging scholarly venues that do not yet have an impact factor. We performed a large-scale experiment with real data to evaluate the current scholarly recommendation system and showed that our proposed system achieves better results than the baseline. The results provide important up-to-the-minute signals that compared with postpublication usage-based metrics represent a closer reflection of a researcher's interests.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendation of scholarly venues based on dynamic user interests

Alhoori

Furuta

2017

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An alternative approach is to adopt fully automated reviewer selection processes (Li, Cao, & Qu, ; Protasiewicz et al, ). Li and Hou () claim to have designed and implemented a new reviewer assignment system called Erie and have successfully deployed it to assign reviewers for IEEE INFOCOM 2015 and INFOCOM 2016.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An alternative approach is to adopt fully automated reviewer selection processes (Li, Cao, & Qu, 2017;Protasiewicz et al, 2016). Li and Hou (2016) (Li & Hou, 2016), the list of potential reviewers was limited to members of a Technical Program Committee who had provided information on their expertise specifically for the conference.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Journal Administrators solve the reviewer assignment problem as well as editors? Consideration of reviewer rigour and timeliness

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aimed to find whether journal editorial office administrators were as effective as editors at assigning rigorous reviewers. We analysed four journals using blended systems of editor‐selected reviewers (ESR) and Journal Administrator‐selected reviewers (JASR) from four disciplines: medicine, sociology, education, and business/applied psychology. In blended journals, both editors and Journal Administrators select authors to review using web‐based expert‐finding tools. All reviewers selected were both authors and reviewers. We primarily wanted to assess the quality of reviews from both ESR and JASR reviewer selection methodologies. Reviewer rigour was defined as differences between editor decisions and reviewer recommendations. Timeliness data were also recorded and analysed separately as an indicator of efficiency. Reviewer rigour, the quality of reviewers’ evaluations, was estimated from the level of agreement between editors and reviewers. Timeliness was not considered a direct measure of rigour. For two journals, no statistically significant differences were observed; for two, in a small proportion of cases, ESR reviews were more negative. One journal showed some statistically significant major differences but only in 2% of reviews. Timeliness data indicated some statistically significant trends that JASR return reviews more promptly. Therefore, where editors rely on at least two reviewers’ recommendations, JASR is equally rigorous as ESR.

show abstract

“…I. PROBLEMS OF ADJUSTING UNKNOWN PARAMETERS IN EXPERT PROCEDURES Expert procedures are needful part in estimating and evaluating a great deal of attributes or parameters of natural, behavioral, social, economic, and technical processes [1], [2]. Those attributes and parameters cannot be deduced directly, because fundamental laws which might have described them and their structural logic are unknown or unreliable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This optimum provides the stronger framework of an expert procedure [3], [5], [6]. If without adjustment, the results of an expert procedure and its consensus value (object) come poor, unfounded, and frail [1], [2], [5]. A crucial problem of the adjustment is that there is no strict theory which could lead to at least the parameter's confidence interval [7].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hard and Soft Adjusting of a Parameter With Its Known Boundaries by the Value Based on the Experts’ Estimations Limited to the Parameter

Romanuke

2016

Electrical, Control and Communication Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adjustment of an unknown parameter of the multistage expert procedure is considered. The lower and upper boundaries of the parameter are counted to be known. A key condition showing that experts' estimations are satisfactory in the current procedure is an inequality, in which the value based on the estimations is not greater than the parameter. The algorithms of hard and soft adjusting are developed. If the inequality is true and its both terms are too close for a long sequence of expert procedures, the adjusting can be early stopped. The algorithms are reversible, implying inversion to the reverse inequality and sliding up off the lower boundary.

show abstract

A recommender system of reviewers and experts in reviewing problems

Cited by 72 publications

References 36 publications

Recommendation of scholarly venues based on dynamic user interests

Recommendation of scholarly venues based on dynamic user interests

Do Journal Administrators solve the reviewer assignment problem as well as editors? Consideration of reviewer rigour and timeliness

Hard and Soft Adjusting of a Parameter With Its Known Boundaries by the Value Based on the Experts’ Estimations Limited to the Parameter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About