{"about":{"site":"https://codewithpapers.app","non_affiliation":"Code with Papers and Syntology are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Papers with Code, Meta, or the pwc-archive mirror.","licence":"CC BY-SA 4.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","attribution":"https://codewithpapers.app/attribution","modified":"archive material modified by Syntology; see the attribution page"},"url":"/paper/arxiv-2511-23439","title":"ML Researchers Support Openness in Peer Review But Are Concerned About Resubmission Bias","arxiv_id":"2511.23439","date":"2025-11-28","proceeding":"NeurIPS","authors":["Vishisht Rao","Justin Payan","Andrew McCallum","Nihar B. Shah"],"abstract":"Peer-review venues have increasingly adopted open reviewing policies that publicly release anonymized reviews and permit public commenting. Venues have adopted a variety of policies, and there is still ongoing debate about the benefits and drawbacks of decisions. To inform this debate, we surveyed 2,385 reviewers, authors, and other peer-review participants in machine learning to understand their experiences and opinions. Our key findings are: (a) Preferences: Over 80% of respondents support releasing reviews for accepted papers and allowing public comments. However, only 27.1% support releasing rejected manuscripts. (b) Benefits: Respondents cite improved public understanding (75.3%) and reviewer education (57.8%), increased fairness (56.6%), and stronger incentives for high-quality reviews (48.0%). (c) Challenges: The top concern is resubmission bias, where rejection history biases future reviewers (ranked top impact of open reviewing by 41% of respondents, and mentioned in over 50% of free responses). Other challenges include fear of reviewer de-anonymization (33.2%) and potential commenting abuse. (d) AI and open peer review: Participants believe open policies deter \"AI slop\" submissions (71.9%) and AI-generated reviews (38.9%). Respondents are split regarding peer-review venues generating official AI reviews, with 56.0% opposed and 44.0% supportive. Finally, we use AI to annotate 4,244 reviews from ICLR (fully open) and NeurIPS (partially open). We find that the fully open venue (ICLR) has higher levels of correctness and completeness than the partially open venue (NeurIPS). The effect size is small for correctness and very small for completeness, and both are statistically significant. We also find that there is no statistically significant difference in the level of substantiation. We release the full dataset at https://github.com/justinpayan/OpenReviewAnalysis.","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.23439","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.23439","source":{"archive":null,"snapshot":"2025-07-28","note":"not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen at the snapshot)","row_kind":"graph","title_abstract_authors_date":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license)"},"code_links":[],"tasks":[],"methods":[],"datasets_introduced":[],"methods_introduced":[],"results":[],"syntology":{"atlas_url":"https://app.syntology.ai/?focus=2511.23439","mcp":null,"developers":"https://syntology.ai/developers","read_at":"2026-09-24T18:15:14+00:00","read_at_is":"when the build read Syntology's graph, not when any sample ran","claim":"Per-sample execution status on synthesized fixtures; not a correctness claim about the paper. Samples come from repositories linked to the paper, official or community; repo_kind says which.","repos":[{"mentioned_in_github":null,"is_official":null,"provenance":"deterministic:regex_extraction","mentioned_in_paper":null,"url":"https://github.com/justinpayan/OpenReviewAnalysis.3","reach":{"status":"gone","observed_at":"2026-09-16","how":"tree_404+repo_404"}}],"summary":{},"by_repo_kind":{},"repo_kind_vocabulary":{"official":"The archive marks this repository official for the paper","named_in_paper":"The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official","listed":"In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper","found_in_text":"Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted","community":"Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested"},"n_pointer_only_for_licence":0,"samples":[]},"arxiv_metadata":{"licence":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license)","fields":["title","abstract","authors","date"],"primary_category":"cs.DL","source":"arxiv_api"},"syntology_extracted_results":{"kind":"leaderboard_placements","source":"Syntology's leaderboard-shaped extractor over the paper's own arXiv-HTML tables: a model pointed at a cell, the number was read from that cell and checked against the board's metric, dataset, split and scale, and an independent check accepted the entry; not reviewed by the paper's authors or the archive's editors","extractor_model":"global.anthropic.claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929-v1:0","verifier_model":null,"prompt_sha":"fa63d4bb9d755694","coverage":{"sentence":"Syntology has checked 6,264 of the 9,581 papers on this site that are newer than the archive; results from the others appear after they are checked.","papers_newer_than_archive":9581,"papers_checked":6264},"entries":[],"not_placed":{"boards":0,"rejected_by_independent_check":0,"refused_by_a_rule":0,"check_did_not_answer":0,"proposed_without_a_cell":0,"declined_by_site":0}}}