Is Peer-Reviewing Worth the Effort?
This addresses the problem of evaluating peer-review efficiency for researchers and conference organizers, but it is incremental as it builds on existing citation prediction methods.
The paper investigates the effectiveness of peer-reviewing by treating it as a forecasting task to predict which papers will be highly cited based on venue and early citations, finding that early returns are more predictive than venue.
How effective is peer-reviewing in identifying important papers? We treat this question as a forecasting task. Can we predict which papers will be highly cited in the future based on venue and "early returns" (citations soon after publication)? We show early returns are more predictive than venue. Finally, we end with constructive suggestions to address scaling challenges: (a) too many submissions and (b) too few qualified reviewers.