Author feedback experiment at PAM 2007
Abstract
This editorial article is put together to disseminate the experience gained through the author feedback experiment, performed at the 2007 Passive and Active Measurement (PAM) conference.
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?
Prior papers [19-23] all find that in authors' evaluations of reviews on their own papers, the reviewer's accept-or-reject decision is highly correlated with the evaluation rating given by the authors.
“The papers [19–23] all find that in authors’ evaluations of reviews on their own papers, the decision of accept or reject given by the reviewer is highly correlated with evaluation rating given by the authors.”
From Peer reviews of peer reviews: A randomized controlled trial and other experiments (2025) · cites this paper as [21]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peer reviews of peer reviews: A randomized controlled trial and other experiments
Goldberg, A., Stelmakh, I., Cho, K., Oh, A., Agarwal, A., Belgrave, D., & Shah, N. B. (2025) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320444 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“The papers [KBY10, KHB13, Pap07, WKWC02, PMM + 21] all find that in authors’ evaluations of reviews on their own papers, the decision of accept or reject given by the reviewer is highly correlated with evaluation rating given by the authors.”
- Authors
- Papagiannaki, K.
- Affiliations
- Intel (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Papagiannaki, Konstantina
- Venue
- ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
- Published
- 2007-07-20
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 73-78
- ISSN
- 0146-4833 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090738450
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- author feedback, peer review
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
