Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study investigates how author reputation influences review ratings in AI conferences, revealing that bias against lower-reputation authors intensifies when reviews are no longer anonymous. The research utilizes a controlled simulation involving five AI models as reviewers to confirm that these biases are not merely human artifacts but also present in automated evaluation systems. For the community, this highlights critical challenges regarding fairness and objectivity in both human and machine-driven peer review processes within the AI field.
Sources coveringarXiv, InfoQ
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Who Pays for Open Review? Visible Author Reputation and Its Effect on Ratings

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.11983v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An OpenReview bug in November 2025 broke anonymity at several conferences and prompted calls for open review, which motivate us to ask what shifting from blind to open would mean for authors. Analyzing over 18,000 reviewed submissions to ICLR 2026, split into de facto open and blind groups by arXiv preprint timing, we find that ratings rise with author reputation under both mechanisms, with a steeper slope under open review that is statistically significant, and that the open-blind difference is concentrated at the borderline ratings. The pattern holds across five reputation proxies (including institution, h-index, and citation count), three author-aggregation rules, and five definitions of the open window. A controlled simulation with five AI models as reviewers, holding the manuscript fixed and varying the author reputation, reproduces the effect. With claude-opus-5 as the reviewer, for example, rating rises by 0.5 points as the author moves from low to high reputation.

Title:Who Pays for Open Review? Visible Author Reputation and Its Effect on Ratings

Abstract:An OpenReview bug in November 2025 broke anonymity at several conferences and prompted calls for open review, which motivate us to ask what shifting from blind to open would mean for authors. Analyzing over 18,000 reviewed submissions to ICLR 2026, split into de facto open and blind groups by arXiv preprint timing, we find that ratings rise with author reputation under both mechanisms, with a steeper slope under open review that is statistically significant, and that the open-blind difference is concentrated at the borderline ratings. The pattern holds across five reputation proxies (including institution, h-index, and citation count), three author-aggregation rules, and five definitions of the open window. A controlled simulation with five AI models as reviewers, holding the manuscript fixed and varying the author reputation, reproduces the effect. With claude-opus-5 as the reviewer, for example, rating rises by 0.5 points as the author moves from low to high reputation.

Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2609.11983 [cs.DL]

(or arXiv:2609.11983v1 [cs.DL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.11983 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 258 words

Related coverage