A Deep Neural Architecture for Decision-Aware Meta-Review Generation
Abstract
Automatically generating meta-reviews from peer-reviews is a new and challenging task. Although close, the task is not precisely summarizing the peer-reviews. Usually, a conference chair or a journal editor writes a meta-review after going through the reviews written by the appointed reviewers, rounds of discussions with them, finally arriving at a consensus on the paper's fate. In essence, the meta-review texts are decision-aware, i.e., the meta reviewer already forms the decision before writing the meta-review, and the corresponding text conforms to that decision. We leverage this seed idea and design a deep neural architecture to generate decision-aware meta-reviews in this work. We propose a multi-encoder transformer network for peer-review decision prediction and subsequent meta-review generation. We analyze our output quantitatively and qualitatively and argue that quantitative text summarization metrics are not suitable for evaluating the generated meta-reviews. Our proposed model performs comparably with the recent state-of-the-art text summarization approaches. Qualitative evaluation of our model-generated output is encouraging on an open access peer reviews dataset that we curate from the open review platform. We make our data and codes available11https://www.iitp.ac.in/~ai-nlp-ml/resources.html# decision-aware-meta-review.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Shen et al. (2022) and Kumar et al. (2021) explore meta-review generation in a controlled generation setting conditioned on the meta-review score.
“Shen et al. (2022) and Kumar et al. (2021) explore meta-review generation in a controlled generation setting conditioned on the meta-review score.”
From What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? (2024) · cites this paper as Kumar et al. (2021)
Cites
Lewis, M., Liu, Y., Goyal, N., Ghazvininejad, M., Mohamed, A., Levy, O., Stoyanov, V., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.703 · Cited by 8,821 · see citing works
Unified Language Model Pre-training for Natural Language Understanding and Generation
Dong, L., Yang, N., Wang, W., Wei, F., Liu, X., Wang, Y., Gao, J., Zhou, M., & Hon, H.-W. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.03197 · Cited by 1,225 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MetaWriter: Exploring the Potential and Perils of AI Writing Support in Scientific Peer Review
Sun, L., Tao, S., Hu, J., & Dow, S. P. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637371 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?
Kuznetsov, I., Afzal, O. M., Dercksen, K., Dycke, N., Goldberg, A., Hope, T., Hovy, D., Kummerfeld, J. K., Lauscher, A., Leyton-Brown, K., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.06563 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kumar, A., Ghosal, T., & Ekbal, A.
- Affiliations
- IIT Patna,Department of CSE,India
- ÚFAL, MFF Charles University,CZ
- Venue
- 2021 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2021-09
- Pages
- 222-225
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 2
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review