{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2025:FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF","short_pith_number":"pith:FNQNW6DV","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"2b60db78755393cfdbc436c135458b6168a467bd8ede92db643e93e804dd60ea","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2505.04966","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.CY"],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Jaeho Kim, Seulki Lee, Yunseok Lee","submitted_at":"2025-05-08T05:51:48Z","abstract_excerpt":"The peer review process in major artificial intelligence (AI) conferences faces unprecedented challenges with the surge of paper submissions (exceeding 10,000 submissions per venue), accompanied by growing concerns over review quality and reviewer responsibility. This position paper argues for the need to transform the traditional one-way review system into a bi-directional feedback loop where authors evaluate review quality and reviewers earn formal accreditation, creating an accountability framework that promotes a sustainable, high-quality peer review system. The current review system can b"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2505.04966","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.AI","submitted_at":"2025-05-08T05:51:48Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.CY"],"title_canon_sha256":"0726e68117ea3bc216f30581234263d7585141d32eb0c0257c6363548586ec38","abstract_canon_sha256":"92723d17cccc45c797b46cd3d6cfaf1549e11d27d0cf41187a3460d2f1407301"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T11:00:16.806838Z","signature_b64":"zfHuKGcUoCVKaxdS/JoYKS2spepIYS+VE435P1pKQ2a3TuH1PUFEY44TZ1QyIE628QjIzOPzlDE3uqZ9DDTuDg==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"2b60db78755393cfdbc436c135458b6168a467bd8ede92db643e93e804dd60ea","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T11:00:16.806264Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T11:00:16.806264Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.CY"],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Jaeho Kim, Seulki Lee, Yunseok Lee","submitted_at":"2025-05-08T05:51:48Z","abstract_excerpt":"The peer review process in major artificial intelligence (AI) conferences faces unprecedented challenges with the surge of paper submissions (exceeding 10,000 submissions per venue), accompanied by growing concerns over review quality and reviewer responsibility. This position paper argues for the need to transform the traditional one-way review system into a bi-directional feedback loop where authors evaluate review quality and reviewers earn formal accreditation, creating an accountability framework that promotes a sustainable, high-quality peer review system. The current review system can b"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2505.04966","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2505.04966/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2505.04966","created_at":"2026-07-05T11:00:16.806344+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2505.04966v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T11:00:16.806344+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2505.04966","created_at":"2026-07-05T11:00:16.806344+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"FNQNW6DVKOJ4","created_at":"2026-07-05T11:00:16.806344+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6E","created_at":"2026-07-05T11:00:16.806344+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"FNQNW6DV","created_at":"2026-07-05T11:00:16.806344+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":6,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.18060","citing_title":"PseudoBench: Measuring How Agentic Auto-Research Fuels Pseudoscience","ref_index":123,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.13044","citing_title":"No Hidden Prompts Needed! You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisions","ref_index":12,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.24222","citing_title":"Analyzing the Effects of Two-Stage Peer Evaluation","ref_index":21,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.16616","citing_title":"MLReplicate: Benchmarking Autonomous Research Systems for Machine Learning Reproducibility","ref_index":20,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.09915","citing_title":"Position: Academic Conferences are Potentially Facing Denominator Gaming Caused by Fully Automated Scientific Agents","ref_index":12,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.10425","citing_title":"Toward an Engineering of Science: Rebalancing Generation and Verification in the Age of AI","ref_index":16,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF","json":"https://pith.science/pith/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/FNQNW6DV"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/FNQNW6DV","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2505.04966&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/FNQNW6DVKOJ47W6EG3ATKRMLMF/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T11:00:16.806344+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T11:00:16.806344+00:00"}