The conference peer review process involves three constituencies with different objectives: authors want their papers accepted at prestigious venues (and quickly), conferences want to present a program with many high-quality and few low-quality papers, and reviewers want to avoid being overburdened by reviews. These objectives are far from aligned, primarily because the evaluation of a submission is inherently noisy. Over the years, conferences have experimented with numerous policies to navigate the tradeoffs. These experiments include setting various bars for acceptance, varying the number of reviews per submission, requiring prior reviews to be included with resubmissions, and others. In this work, we investigate, both analytically and empirically, how well various policies work, and more importantly, why they do or do not work. We model the conference-author interactions as a Stackelberg game in which a prestigious conference commits to an acceptance policy; the authors best-respond by (re)submitting or not (re)submitting to the conference in each round of review, the alternative being a "sure accept" (such as a lightly refereed venue). Our main results include the following observations: 1) the conference should typically set a higher acceptance threshold than the actual desired quality; we call this the "resubmission gap". 2) the reviewing load is heavily driven by resubmissions of borderline papers - therefore, a judicious choice of acceptance threshold may lead to fewer reviews while incurring an acceptable loss in conference quality. 3) conference prestige, reviewer inaccuracy, and author patience increase the resubmission gap, and thus increase the review load for a fixed level of conference quality. For robustness, we further consider different models of paper quality and compare our theoretical results to simulations based on plausible parameters estimated from real data.

翻译：暂无翻译