Describing papers and reviewers' competences by taxonomy of keywords

This article focuses on the importance of the precise calculation of similarity factors between papers and reviewers for performing a fair and accurate automatic assignment of reviewers to papers. It suggests that papers and reviewers’ competences should be described by taxonomy of keywords so that the implied hierarchical structure allows similarity measures to take into account not only the number of exactly matching keywords, but in case of non-matching ones to calculate how semantically close they are. The paper also suggests a similarity measure derived from the well-known and widely-used Dice's coefficient, but adapted in a way it could be also applied between sets whose elements are semantically related to each other (as concepts in taxonomy are). It allows a non-zero similarity factor to be accurately calculated between a paper and a reviewer even if they do not share any keyword in common.

[1]  Andreas Rauber,et al.  Improving Scientific Conferences by Enhancing Conference Management Systems with Information Mining Capabilities , 2007, 2006 1st International Conference on Digital Information Management.

[2]  Philip Resnik,et al.  Semantic Similarity in a Taxonomy: An Information-Based Measure and its Application to Problems of Ambiguity in Natural Language , 1999, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[3]  Yordan Kalmukov,et al.  An algorithm for automatic assignment of reviewers to papers , 2007, Scientometrics.

[4]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[5]  Stefano Ferilli,et al.  GRAPE: An Expert Review Assignment Component for Scientific Conference Management Systems , 2005, IEA/AIE.

[6]  Richard van de Stadt.  CyberChair: A Web-Based Groupware Application to Facilitate the Paper Reviewing Process , 2012, ArXiv.

[7]  Philippe Rigaux.  An iterative rating method: application to web-based conference management , 2004, SAC '04.

[8]  Dekang Lin,et al.  An Information-Theoretic Definition of Similarity , 1998, ICML.

[9]  Martha Palmer,et al.  Verb Semantics and Lexical Selection , 1994, ACL.

[10]  J. Munkres.  ALGORITHMS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSIORTATION tROBLEMS* , 1957 .

[11]  Yordan Kalmukov,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Existing Methods and Algorithms for Automatic Assignment of Reviewers to Papers , 2010, ArXiv.

[12]  Johan Bollen,et al.  An algorithm to determine peer-reviewers , 2006, CIKM '08.

[13]  Roy Rada,et al.  Development and application of a metric on semantic nets , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[14]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Peer Selection in Peer-to-Peer Networks with Semantic Topologies , 2004, ICSNW.

[15]  Paolo Bouquet,et al.  Asking and answering semantic queries , 2004 .

[16]  H. Kuhn.  The Hungarian method for the assignment problem , 1955 .

[17]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Measuring Similarity between Ontologies , 2002, EKAW.

[18]  Floriana Esposito,et al.  Proceedings of the 18th international conference on Innovations in Applied Artificial Intelligence , 2004 .

[19]  Stefano Ferilli,et al.  Automatic Topics Identification for Reviewer Assignment , 2006, IEA/AIE.