English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Peer review is the foundation of scientific publication, and the task ofreviewing has long been seen as a cornerstone of professional service. However,the massive growth in the field of machine learning has put this communitybenefit under stress, threatening both the sustainability of an effectivereview process and the overall progress of the field. In this position paper,we argue that a tragedy of the commons outcome may be avoided by emphasizingthe professional aspects of this service. In particular, we propose a rubric tohold reviewers to an objective standard for review quality. In turn, we alsopropose that reviewers be given appropriate incentive. As one possible suchincentive, we explore the idea of financial compensation on a per-review basis.We suggest reasonable funding models and thoughts on long term effects.

Avoiding a Tragedy of the Commons in the Peer Review Process