John R. Douceur
Within the computer-science community, submitted conference papers are typically evaluated by means of rating, in two respects: First, individual reviewers are asked to provide their evaluations of papers by assigning a rating to each paper’s overall quality. Second, program committees collectively rate each paper as being either worthy or unworthy of acceptance, according to the aggregate judgment of the committee members. This paper proposes an alternative approach to these two processes, based on rankings rather than ratings. It also presents experiences from employing rankings in PC discussions of a major CS conference.
|Published in||Operating Systems Review 43 (2)|
|Publisher||Association for Computing Machinery, Inc.|
Copyright © 2009 by the Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Publications Dept, ACM Inc., fax +1 (212) 869-0481, or email@example.com. The definitive version of this paper can be found at ACM’s Digital Library --http://www.acm.org/dl/.
John R. Douceur. Paper Rating vs. Paper Ranking, USENIX, 2008.