Show/Hide Menu
Hide/Show Apps
Logout
Türkçe
Türkçe
Search
Search
Login
Login
OpenMETU
OpenMETU
About
About
Open Science Policy
Open Science Policy
Open Access Guideline
Open Access Guideline
Postgraduate Thesis Guideline
Postgraduate Thesis Guideline
Communities & Collections
Communities & Collections
Help
Help
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Guides
Guides
Thesis submission
Thesis submission
MS without thesis term project submission
MS without thesis term project submission
Publication submission with DOI
Publication submission with DOI
Publication submission
Publication submission
Supporting Information
Supporting Information
General Information
General Information
Copyright, Embargo and License
Copyright, Embargo and License
Contact us
Contact us
Aligning Reviewer Guidelines and Reviewer Feedback: A Data-Driven Study
Download
Ozer_Tanrisever_Master_Thesis_Final.pdf
Özer Tanrısever_Yayımlama Fikri Mülkiyet Hakları ve Doğruluk Beyanı Jüri İmza Sayfası ve Öğrenci İmza Sayfası.pdf
Date
2026-1-14
Author
Tanrısever, Özer
Metadata
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
.
Item Usage Stats
82
views
0
downloads
Cite This
Academic venues have established reviewer guidelines to enable standardized evaluation. This study proposes a framework designed to categorize reviewer inquiries and systematically measure their alignment with institutional guidelines. The analysis utilizes peer review data from the 2024 International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) on the OpenReview platform. The framework employs a question extraction pipeline utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) and embedding similarity to decompose unstructured review inquiry text into semantically coherent chunks. A stratified sample of 427 reviews selected from 22,358 yielded 760 question chunks following multi-agent consensus validation. Generative topic modeling identified 13 topics within this dataset, including Methodology and Computational Efficiency. Finally, these empirically derived topics are mapped against evaluation criteria extracted from eight unique reviewer guidelines representing ten top-tier AI venues. Topic generation and mapping underwent manual and LLM-based verification, with an additional cross-check by a senior academic to reduce subjectivity. The results reveal a divergence between prescribed and practiced criteria. Ethical Considerations appears in six out of eight guidelines but ranks as the least frequent topic in the dataset. In contrast, Presentation and Figures appears only in two guidelines, but accounts for 8.29% of the reviewer inquiries. The findings offer actionable insights for conference organizers to refine guidelines and enable authors to understand the prioritized reviewer criteria in practice, ultimately enhancing the reliability of the peer review ecosystem.
Subject Keywords
Large Language Model
,
Generative Topic Modeling
,
LLM-as-a-Judge
,
Data-Driven Guideline Alignment
,
Academic Peer Review
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/11511/118418
Collections
Graduate School of Informatics, Thesis
Citation Formats
IEEE
ACM
APA
CHICAGO
MLA
BibTeX
Ö. Tanrısever, “Aligning Reviewer Guidelines and Reviewer Feedback: A Data-Driven Study,” M.S. - Master of Science, Middle East Technical University, 2026.