IJCAI Reviewer Bias: Addressing False Claims and Policy Violations in Paper Evaluation

The Erosion of Peer Review Integrity: A Systemic Analysis of IJCAI Reviewer Bias Main Thesis: The integrity of the peer review process in prestigious conferences like IJCAI is compromised when reviewers provide biased, inaccurate, and policy-violating feedback, threatening the fairness and credibility of academic evaluation. Impact Chains: From Internal Processes to Observable Effects The peer review process, a cornerstone of academic rigor, is vulnerable to systemic failures that manifest in observable biases and inaccuracies. These failures can be traced through distinct impact chains, each linking internal reviewer processes to tangible outcomes that undermine the credibility of evaluations. Impact: Biased reviewing due to lack of thoroughness. Internal Process: Reviewers often fail to engage deeply with submissions, leading to superficial assessments. This superficiality stems from factors such as overwhelming workloads or insufficient time allocation, which compromise the reviewer