...
首页> 外文期刊>Expert systems with applications >A proactive decision support system for reviewer recommendation in academia
【24h】

A proactive decision support system for reviewer recommendation in academia

机译:学术界审查员建议的主动决策支持系统

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Peer review is an essential part of scientific communications to ensure the quality of publications and a healthy scientific evaluation process. Assigning appropriate reviewers poses a great challenge for program chairs and journal editors for many reasons, including relevance, fair judgment, no conflict of interest, and qualified reviewers in terms of scientific impact. With a steady increase in the number of research domains, scholarly venues, researchers, and papers in academia, manually selecting and accessing adequate reviewers is becoming a tedious and time-consuming task. Traditional approaches for reviewer selection mainly focus on the matching of research relevance by keywords or disciplines. However, in real-world systems, various factors are often needed to be considered. Therefore, we propose a multilayered approach integrating Topic Network, Citation Network, and Reviewer Network into a reviewer Recommender System (TCRRec). We explore various aspects, including relevance between reviewer candidates and submission, authority, expertise, diversity, and conflict of interest and integrate them into the proposed framework TCRRec. The paper also addresses cold start issues for researchers having unique areas of interest or for isolated researchers. Experiments based on the NIPS and AMiner dataset demonstrate that the proposed TCRRec outperforms state-of-the-art recommendation techniques in terms of standard metrics of precision@k, MRR, nDCG@k, authority, expertise, diversity, and coverage.
机译:同行评审是科学沟通的重要组成部分,以确保出版物质量和健康的科学评估过程。分配适当的审核人员为节目椅和期刊编辑带来了巨大的挑战,包括许多原因,包括相关性,公平判断,没有利益冲突以及合格的审查员在科学的影响方面。在学术界的研究域名,学术场所,研究人员和论文的数量稳步增加,手动选择和访问适当的审核人员正在成为一个乏味且耗时的任务。审稿人选择的传统方法主要关注关键字或学科的研究相关性的匹配。然而,在真实的系统中,通常需要考虑各种因素。因此,我们提出了一个多层方法将主题网络,引文网络和审阅程序网络集成到审阅者推荐系统(TCRREC)中。我们探讨各个方面,包括审核候选人和提交,权力,专业知识,多样性和利益冲突之间的相关性,并将其整合到拟议的框架TCRREC中。本文还针对具有独特感兴趣或孤立的研究人员的研究人员讨论了冷启动问题。基于NIPS和Aminer DataSet的实验表明,所提出的TCRREC优于最先进的推荐技术,以@ K,MRR,NDCG @ K,权限,专业知识,多样性和覆盖范围的标准度量。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号