Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1307.6528

Incentives, Quality, and Risks: A Look Into the NSF Proposal Review Pilot

Parinaz Naghizadeh·Mingyan Liu
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The National Science Foundation (NSF) will be experimenting with a new distributed approach to reviewing proposals, whereby a group of principal investigators (PIs) or proposers in a subfield act as reviewers for the proposals submitted by the same set of PIs. To encourage honesty, PIs' chances for getting funded are tied to the quality of their reviews (with respect to the reviews provided by the entire group), in addition to the quality of their proposals. Intuitively, this approach can more fairly distribute the review workload, discourage frivolous proposal submission, and encourage high quality reviews. On the other hand, this method has already raised concerns about the integrity of the process and the possibility of strategic manipulation. In this paper, we take a closer look at three specific issues in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the strengths and limitations of the new process beyond first impressions and anecdotal evidence. We start by considering the benefits and drawbacks of bundling the quality of PIs' reviews with the scientific merit of their proposals. We then consider the issue of collusion and favoritism. Finally, we examine whether the new process puts controversial proposals at a disadvantage. We conclude that some benefits of using review quality as an incentive mechanism may outweigh its drawbacks. On the other hand, even a coalition of two PIs can cause significant harm to the process, as the built-in incentives are not strong enough to deter collusion. While we also confirm the common suspicion that the process is skewed toward non-controversial proposals, the more unexpected finding is that among equally controversial proposals, those of lower quality get a leg up through this process. Thus the process not only favors non-controversial proposals, but in some sense, mediocrity. We also discuss possible ways to improve this review process.

Explore related subjects

cs.GTcs.SIphysics.soc-ph

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Parinaz Naghizadeh, Mingyan Liu. 2013-07-24. Incentives, Quality, and Risks: A Look Into the NSF Proposal Review Pilot. https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6528

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MMS Allocation for Chores with Online Agent Arrivals

We study the fair allocation of $m$ indivisible chores to $n$ agents with subadditive cost functions arriving online in an arbitrary order. Upon an agent's arrival, we are informed of her cost function and must irrevocably assign her a set of chores. We focus on the Maximin Share (MMS) fairness notion and aim to compute an allocation in which all items are assigned, and no agent incurs a cost more than $\alpha$ times her MMS. Without any prior information about the instance (other than $n$ and $m$), we design an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{n, k\log^{1+\epsilon}k, \log m\})$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$, where $k$ denotes the number of cost function types. Our bound matches the best known offline approximation guarantees for MMS under subadditive costs and is nearly optimal with respect to all three parameters: we show that even for binary additive cost functions, no online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio of $o(\min\{n, k\log k, \log m\})$. We then consider the setting in which the $k$ cost function types are known in advance (though the realized types of arriving agents are not). For additive cost functions, we provide an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{\log k, \log(kn)/\log\log(kn)\})$, and show that constant-competitive algorithms do not exist for general $k$, even for the binary additive setting. For binary additive functions when $k \le n$, we propose a $3$-competitive algorithm and establish a lower bound of $2$.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Truncated Noisy Best-Response Algorithms: Toward Game Theoretic Learning with Safety Guarantees

We consider a game theoretic approach to solve multi-agent coordination problems with submodular maximization objectives. It is known for such problems that the Nash equilibria for the corresponding game are always within 50% of the optimal, but that the equilibria which achieve this worst-case bound are not stable. To exploit this instability, we propose a family of algorithms which we call Truncated Noisy Best-Response (TNBR) Algorithms. These algorithms are flexibly characterized by agents asynchronously and stochastically selecting actions from a neighbourhood of their best response payoffs. We compute bounds on the recurrent classes of TNBR algorithms' associated Markov chains. Our bounds fall into two categories: first, "Performance" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms always have a high-value recurrent state; second, "Safety" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms never have arbitrarily-bad recurrent states. Furthermore, these two types of bounds are linked by a waterbed-like effect: every game with a poor Safety guarantee necessarily has a favorable Performance guarantee.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Existence of the Core in Approval-Based Committee Elections

We settle the main open question in the theory of approval-based multi-winner elections: we show that there always exists a committee in the core. The core is a stability and group fairness concept. The proof introduces a new voting rule that optimizes an entropy-like objective function over committees and payment systems. All local optima of this objective function lie in the core, which implies that a core committee can be found in polynomial time.

cs.GT↗