×

A comprehensive survey of the reviewer assignment problem. (English) Zbl 1209.90233

Summary: Reviewer Assignment Problem (RAP) is an important issue in peer-review of academic writing. This issue directly influences the quality of the publication and as such is the brickwork of scientific authentication. Due to the obvious limitations of manual assignment, automatic approaches for RAP are in demand. In this paper, we conduct a survey on those automatic approaches appeared in academic literature. In this paper, regardless of the way the reviewer assignment is structured, we formally divide the RAP into three phases: reviewer candidate search, matching degree computation, and assignment optimization. We find that current research mainly focuses on one or two phases, but obviously, these three phases are correlative. For each phase, we describe and classify the main issues and methods for addressing them. Methodologies in these three phases have been developed in a variety of research disciplines, including information retrieval, artificial intelligence, operations research, etc. Naturally, we categorize different approaches by these disciplines and provide comments on their advantages and limitations. With an emphasis on identifying the gaps between current approaches and the practical needs, we point out the potential future research opportunities, including integrated optimization, online optimization, etc.

MSC:

90B80 Discrete location and assignment
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Evans P., Literati Newsline: Special Issue for Authors and Editors 2
[2] El-Munchid H., Annals of Saudi Medicine 21 pp 5–
[3] DOI: 10.1177/0165551504045854 · doi:10.1177/0165551504045854
[4] DOI: 10.1109/MC.2005.423 · Zbl 05091354 · doi:10.1109/MC.2005.423
[5] Casati F., Ubiquity 8 pp 1–
[6] JAIRJournal of Artificial Intelligence Research e-journal  (2008), www.jair.org.
[7] DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4 · doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4
[8] Weber R., Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2
[9] Harnad S., D-Lib Magazine 5
[10] Wei J. C., Decision Science 30 pp 865–
[11] DOI: 10.1016/0306-4573(88)90027-1 · doi:10.1016/0306-4573(88)90027-1
[12] Fox G., Information Reuse and Integration (IEEE IRI-2007) (2007)
[13] DOI: 10.1109/17.759144 · doi:10.1109/17.759144
[14] DOI: 10.1016/S0957-4174(02)00046-5 · Zbl 01937333 · doi:10.1016/S0957-4174(02)00046-5
[15] DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2003.08.005 · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2003.08.005
[16] DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-71921-4_6 · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-71921-4_6
[17] DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb00910.x · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb00910.x
[18] Ahuja R. K., Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications (2003)
[19] Salton G., An Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval (1983) · Zbl 0523.68084
[20] DOI: 10.1016/0306-4573(87)90017-3 · doi:10.1016/0306-4573(87)90017-3
[21] DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199009)41:6<391::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-9 · doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199009)41:6<391::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-9
[22] DOI: 10.1145/245108.245126 · doi:10.1145/245108.245126
[23] Yu L., Expert Systems with Applications 28 pp 67–
[24] DOI: 10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.012 · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.012
[25] DOI: 10.1142/S021962200800279X · Zbl 1160.68365 · doi:10.1142/S021962200800279X
[26] Basu C., Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 14 pp 231–
[27] Siddiqui T. J., International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 7
[28] DOI: 10.1142/S0219622008003204 · Zbl 05506004 · doi:10.1142/S0219622008003204
[29] DOI: 10.1142/S0219622008002818 · Zbl 1152.90506 · doi:10.1142/S0219622008002818
[30] DOI: 10.1021/ie050478h · doi:10.1021/ie050478h
[31] DOI: 10.1023/A:1019225027893 · Zbl 0974.90006 · doi:10.1023/A:1019225027893
[32] DOI: 10.1016/S0166-218X(97)00120-0 · Zbl 0882.90109 · doi:10.1016/S0166-218X(97)00120-0
[33] DOI: 10.1287/inte.30.6.95.11622 · doi:10.1287/inte.30.6.95.11622
[34] DOI: 10.1287/opre.40.1.S28 · Zbl 0745.90049 · doi:10.1287/opre.40.1.S28
[35] Hansen P., Interfaces 11 pp 85–
[36] DOI: 10.1287/opre.47.3.449 · Zbl 0979.90102 · doi:10.1287/opre.47.3.449
[37] DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.30.11.1362 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.11.1362
[38] DOI: 10.1287/inte.21.4.26 · doi:10.1287/inte.21.4.26
[39] DOI: 10.1002/int.1055 · Zbl 0988.68171 · doi:10.1002/int.1055
[40] DOI: 10.1016/0377-2217(92)90077-M · Zbl 0760.90071 · doi:10.1016/0377-2217(92)90077-M
[41] DOI: 10.1287/opre.45.6.831 · Zbl 0895.90161 · doi:10.1287/opre.45.6.831
[42] P. Moscato and C. Cotta, Handbook of Metaheuristics, eds. Fred Glover and Gary A. Kochenberger (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003) pp. 105–144. · Zbl 1107.90459 · doi:10.1007/0-306-48056-5_5
[43] DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0290 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0290
[44] DOI: 10.1287/opre.35.2.254 · Zbl 0625.90047 · doi:10.1287/opre.35.2.254
[45] Christakou C., International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 7 pp 639–
[46] DOI: 10.1109/MIS.2007.58 · Zbl 05334052 · doi:10.1109/MIS.2007.58
[47] Fellner D. W., Managing Conference Proceeding (2001)
[48] Geller J., Challenge: Technology for Automated Reviewer Selection (1997)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.