COCI: Conference Organisers and Content Identifier

Despite the critical role of grey literature in scholarly communication, artefacts such as Calls for Papers (CfPs) remain largely isolated from modern Scholarly Knowledge Graphs. The unstructured and highly heterogeneous nature of these documents has traditionally hindered their large-scale processing. In this demo paper, we present the Conference Organisers and Content Identifier (COCI), an AI-based framework designed to extract fine-grained, structured metadata from raw CfP texts. COCI employs a multi-stage pipeline that combines Large Language Models (LLMs) with semantic mapping techniques to integrate extracted entities with established knowledge bases, including OpenAlex, DBLP, TIB ConfIDent, and the AIDA Dashboard. By disambiguating authors and semantically aligning topics and conference series, COCI bridges the gap between informal scholarly dissemination and structured Semantic Web resources, laying the foundation for systematic analysis of non-publisher-based academic events.

Which Review Aspect Has a Greater Impact on the Duration of Open Peer Review in Multiple Rounds? -- Evidence from Nature Communications

Purpose: Peer review is essential to scientific publishing, but increasing submission volumes have placed growing pressure on reviewers and editors. This study examines the relationship between sentiment toward specific review aspects and peer review duration. It also investigates how this relationship varies across disciplines and review rounds, with the aim of supporting targeted manuscript revision and improving review efficiency. Design/methodology/approach: We adopt a two-stage approach. First, fine-grained aspects are extracted from peer review reports, and a sentiment classification model is used to determine the sentiment associated with each aspect. Second, correlations between aspect-level sentiment and peer review duration are analyzed. Sentiment scores are also calculated for different review rounds to determine whether these relationships change over successive rounds. Findings: Review sentiment has a weak but statistically significant negative correlation with peer review duration, indicating that more positive reviews tend to be associated with shorter review periods. Aspects concerning Evaluation and Results and Impact and Research Value show relatively stronger correlations with review duration. The relationships between aspect-level sentiment and review duration also differ significantly across review rounds. Originality/value: This study connects the textual content of peer review reports with the temporal characteristics of the review process. By identifying review aspects that are more closely associated with review duration, it provides evidence that may help authors prioritize revisions and assist reviewers and editors in improving review efficiency. The findings contribute to reducing the burden of peer review and accelerating scholarly communication and knowledge dissemination.

Position: Want Better ML Reviews? Stop Asking Nicely and Start Incentivizing with a Credit System

With soaring submission counts, stricter reciprocal review policies, widespread adoption of platforms like OpenReview, and without the offsetting pressure of publication fees, the machine learning (ML) community has one of the largest scholarly presences among all scientific fields. And yet, \textbf{almost \textit{everyone} has \textit{many} unpleasant things to share about their review experience.} Worse, there is little public space to seriously discuss, let alone debate, what makes a review system effective or how it might be improved.\quad In this position paper, we expand our discussion from two core problems: \textit{How can we reasonably limit submission volume?} and \textit{How can we incentivize good and discourage bad reviewing?} We first assess the strengths and shortcomings of existing attempts to address such problems. Specifically, we present four takes on some popular conference mechanisms and propose two alternative designs for improvement.\quad Our general position is that meaningful improvement in ML peer review won't come from polite best-practice suggestions tucked into Calls for Papers or Reviewer Guidelines: it requires \textbf{enforceable yet fine-grained procedural safeguards} paired with \textbf{a currency-like credit system (e.g., our proposed \textit{OpenReview Points})}. ML practitioners can ``earn'' such points by contributing good review practices, and ``spend'' them across one or multiple major conferences to redeem different kinds of ``perks,'' such as complimentary registration or the right to request additional review resources.

PeeriScope: A Multi-Faceted Framework for Evaluating Peer Review Quality

The increasing scale and variability of peer review in scholarly venues has created an urgent need for systematic, interpretable, and extensible tools to assess review quality. We present PeeriScope, a modular platform that integrates structured features, rubric-guided large language model assessments, and supervised prediction to evaluate peer review quality along multiple dimensions. Designed for openness and integration, PeeriScope provides both a public interface and a documented API, supporting practical deployment and research extensibility. The demonstration illustrates its use for reviewer self-assessment, editorial triage, and large-scale auditing, and it enables the continued development of quality evaluation methods within scientific peer review. PeeriScope is available both as a live demo at https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peeriscope and via API services at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peeriscope.