论文标题
作者元数据与接受之间的关联：一项功能丰富的，匹配的观察性研究，对ICLR提交的语料库2017-2022之间
Association between author metadata and acceptance: A feature-rich, matched observational study of a corpus of ICLR submissions between 2017-2022
论文作者
论文摘要
许多最近的研究探讨了学术期刊和会议的同行评审过程中的状态偏见。 In this article, we investigated the association between author metadata and area chairs' final decisions (Accept/Reject) using our compiled database of 5,313 borderline submissions to the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) from 2017 to 2022. We carefully defined elements in a cause-and-effect analysis, including the treatment and its timing, pre-treatment variables, potential outcomes and causal null hypothesis of interest, all in the研究单位的上下文是文本数据，在Neyman和Rubin的潜在结果（PO）框架下。我们发现一些薄弱的证据表明作者元数据与文章的最终决定有关。我们还发现，在额外的稳定性假设下，与匹配的对应物相比，面积椅的边缘性文章（前30％或前20％）受到区域椅的青睐。在两个不同的设计中，结果在两个不同的设计中是一致的（优势比= 0.82 [95％CI：0.67至1.00]在第一个设计中，在增强的设计中0.83 [95％CI：0.64至1.07]）。我们讨论了如何在同行评审系统中的研究单元和不同代理（审阅者和区域椅子）之间多次相互作用的背景下解释这些结果。
Many recent studies have probed status bias in the peer-review process of academic journals and conferences. In this article, we investigated the association between author metadata and area chairs' final decisions (Accept/Reject) using our compiled database of 5,313 borderline submissions to the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) from 2017 to 2022. We carefully defined elements in a cause-and-effect analysis, including the treatment and its timing, pre-treatment variables, potential outcomes and causal null hypothesis of interest, all in the context of study units being textual data and under Neyman and Rubin's potential outcomes (PO) framework. We found some weak evidence that author metadata was associated with articles' final decisions. We also found that, under an additional stability assumption, borderline articles from high-ranking institutions (top-30% or top-20%) were less favored by area chairs compared to their matched counterparts. The results were consistent in two different matched designs (odds ratio = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00] in a first design and 0.83 [95% CI: 0.64 to 1.07] in a strengthened design). We discussed how to interpret these results in the context of multiple interactions between a study unit and different agents (reviewers and area chairs) in the peer-review system.
