My part is bigger than yours -- assessment within a group of peers
Konrad Ku{\l}akowski, Jacek Szybowski

TL;DR
This paper introduces models to aggregate expert opinions on individual contributions within group projects, aiming to achieve consensus on each member's share based on their significance.
Contribution
It proposes simple, scalable models that link expert opinions to their assessed contribution, facilitating fairer attribution in collaborative efforts.
Findings
Models effectively aggregate peer opinions
Greater contribution importance increases opinion weight
Applicable beyond scientific paper authorship
Abstract
A project (e.g., writing a collaborative research paper) is often a group effort. At the end, each contributor identifies their contribution, often verbally. The reward, however, is very frequently financial. It leads to the question of what (percentage) share in the creation of the paper is due to individual authors. Different authors may have various opinions on the matter; even worse, their opinions may have different relevance. In this paper, we present simple models that allow aggregation of experts' views, linking the priority of his preference directly to the assessment made by other experts. In this approach, the more significant the contribution of a given expert, the greater the importance of his opinion. The presented method can be considered an attempt to find consensus among peers involved in the same project. Hence, its applications may go beyond the proposed study example…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
