Skip to main content

How to Keep Bad Papers Out of Conferences (with Minimum Reviewer Effort)

  • Conference paper
Security Protocols XIX (Security Protocols 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 7114))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 692 Accesses

Abstract

Reviewing conference submissions is both labour-intensive and diffuse. A lack of focus leads to reviewers spending much of their scarce time on papers which will not be accepted, which can prevent them from identifying several classes of problems with papers that will be. We identify opportunities for automation in the review process and propose protocols which allow human reviewers to better focus their limited time and attention, making it easier to select only the best “genetic” material to incorporate into their conference’s “DNA.” Some of the protocols that we propose are difficult to “game” without uneconomic investment on the part of the attacker, and successfully attacking others requires attackers to provide a positive social benefit to the wider research community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Geer, D.J.: Monopoly considered harmful. IEEE Security & Privacy 1(6), 14–17 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kessler, M.: An experimental study of bibliographic coupling between technical papers. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 9(1), 49–51 (1963)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pearson, K.: On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of space. Philosophical Magazine 2(11), 559–572 (1901)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Simkin, M.V., Roychowdhury, V.P.: A Mathematical Theory of Citing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(11) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Stamp, M.: Risks of monoculture. Communications of the ACM 47(3) ( March 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tang, J., Zhang, D., Yao, L.: Social Network Extraction of Academic Researchers. In: Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pp. 292–301 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., Su, Z.: ArnetMiner: extraction and mining of academic social networks. In: ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD). ACM (August 2008)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Anderson, J., Stajano, F., Watson, R.N.M. (2011). How to Keep Bad Papers Out of Conferences (with Minimum Reviewer Effort). In: Christianson, B., Crispo, B., Malcolm, J., Stajano, F. (eds) Security Protocols XIX. Security Protocols 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7114. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25867-1_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25867-1_34

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-25866-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-25867-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics