Search for: All records

Collusion rings pose a significant threat to peer review. In these rings, reviewers who are also authors coordinate to manipulate paper assignments, often by strategically bidding on each other’s papers. A promising solution is to detect collusion through these manipulated bids, enabling conferences to take appropriate action. However, while methods exist for detecting other types of fraud, no research has yet shown that identifying collusion rings is feasible. In this work, we consider the question of whether it is feasible to detect collusion rings from the paper bidding. We conduct an empirical analysis of two realistic conference bidding datasets and evaluate existing algorithms for fraud detection in other applications. We find that collusion rings can achieve considerable success at manipulating the paper assignment while remaining hidden from detection: for example, in one dataset, undetected colluders are able to achieve assignment to up to 30% of the papers authored by other colluders. In addition, when 10 colluders bid on all of each other’s papers, no detection algorithm outputs a group of reviewers with more than 31% overlap with the true colluders. These results suggest that collusion cannot be effectively detected from the bidding using popular existing tools, demonstrating the need to develop more complex detection algorithms as well as those that leverage additional metadata (e.g., reviewer-paper text-similarity scores). 

ObjectivePeer review frequently follows a process where reviewers first provide initial reviews, authors respond to these reviews, then reviewers update their reviews based on the authors’ response. There is mixed evidence regarding whether this process is useful, including frequent anecdotal complaints that reviewers insufficiently update their scores. In this study, we aim to investigate whether reviewersanchorto their original scores when updating their reviews, which serves as a potential explanation for the lack of updates in reviewer scores. DesignWe design a novel randomized controlled trial to test if reviewers exhibit anchoring. In the experimental condition, participants initially see a flawed version of a paper that is corrected after they submit their initial review, while in the control condition, participants only see the correct version. We take various measures to ensure that in the absence of anchoring, reviewers in the experimental group should revise their scores to be identically distributed to the scores from the control group. Furthermore, we construct the reviewed paper to maximize the difference between the flawed and corrected versions, and employ deception to hide the true experiment purpose. ResultsOur randomized controlled trial consists of 108 researchers as participants. First, we find that our intervention was successful at creating a difference in perceived paper quality between the flawed and corrected versions: Using a permutation test with the Mann-WhitneyUstatistic, we find that the experimental group’s initial scores are lower than the control group’s scores in both the Evaluation category (Vargha-DelaneyA= 0.64,p= 0.0096) and Overall score (A= 0.59,p= 0.058). Next, we test for anchoring by comparing the experimental group’s revised scores with the control group’s scores. We find no significant evidence of anchoring in either the Overall (A= 0.50,p= 0.61) or Evaluation category (A= 0.49,p= 0.61). The Mann-WhitneyUrepresents the number of individual pairwise comparisons across groups in which the value from the specified group is stochastically greater, while the Vargha-DelaneyAis the normalized version in [0, 1]. 

Circular economy-based investments remain modest when compared to sustainability investments. Private investors interested in the circular economy currently have limited choices. To advance the transition to a circular economy, understanding private funding motivation, options, and outcomes are research directions that need to be pursued. Interdisciplinary researchers from environmental sustainability, ecological economics, and finance communities are urged to explore private financing options for the circular economy.