F Wang B. Chen. and Z miao unfixed criteria are also used in some conference procedure, especially when the dis- cipline information is not integrated or hard to represent by several keywords. In that case, IR technology is applied to compute the similarity between manuscripts and reviewers' biographies [14]. In the mean while, data mining is used to extract the keyword-list by doing unsupervised clustering or supervised learning by using pervi ous accepted papers as training set [5] Reviewer assignment is the foregoing process of peer-review in the manuscr selection procedure, which directly influences the review result and evaluation aggre gating. Conference chair usually works on the reviewer assignment with the regis tered information of manuscripts and reviewers, and then solution is addressed within the certain community. Meanwhile, in the project selection of national funding com- mittee(e.g. NSF), the assignment is firstly run for an optimal solution, and new re- viewers are invited in case no satisfied solution exists. As the potential reviewer pool is large, committee chair never worries about reviewers workload intensive [21, 36 Moreover, some large science communities(e.g. AAAD)ask reviewers to bid on manuscripts by scanning abstracts, which is taken into consideration for the assign- ment. The bid behavior had been studied as human -factor noise which influences the preference very much rather than disciplines of manuscripts [3 Subjects of domain and conflicts of interest are the two main factors in identifying qualified reviewers. Collecting information of these two factors, known as building of knowledge-database, attracts attention of many conference chairs. Domain informa tion can be submitted by authors and reviewers during registration; but information of conflict, including collaborative relation, student-advisor-relationship, colleague rela- tion, is hard to collect. Geller [15] raised this problem to challenge the Al committee to call for an intelligent solution. Furthermore, Geller and Scherl [16] described how to search Internet to generate a potential-reviewers-list There exists a rich body of literature on peer-review that point out the inadequacies of the current systems. Weber[40] presented his manifestos for changing the journal review processes, since the assignment between manuscripts and reviewers works irrationally and inefficiently. Casati et al.[9] asked for more awareness on the open efficient review model and the reasonable assigning manuscripts to reviewers using information technology along with internet. Some scholars argued that the automatic reviewer assignment approaches bereaved their rights on classifying their own prob- lems which were treated as the scientists'most precious possession [34]. And it is said that the taxonomy of disciplines is not changed momentarily, which makes some interdisciplinary researches and frontier of science will never be recognized by the 3 Assignment Based on Information Retrieval IR used on reviewer assignment focuses on the second phase of RAP, which is com- puting the matching degree between manuscripts and reviewers. This phase had been approached mainly in four ways: content-based IR, collaborative filtering, hybrid approach of the former two and data mining One of the earliest RAP solutions found in literature is by IR, since inefficiency of ee scoring manually was firstly raised. Using the content-based IR720 F. Wang, B. Chen, and Z. Miao unfixed criteria are also used in some conference procedure, especially when the dis￾cipline information is not integrated or hard to represent by several keywords. In that case, IR technology is applied to compute the similarity between manuscripts and reviewers’ biographies [14]. In the mean while, data mining is used to extract the keyword-list by doing unsupervised clustering or supervised learning by using pervi￾ous accepted papers as training set [5]. Reviewer assignment is the foregoing process of peer-review in the manuscripts selection procedure, which directly influences the review result and evaluation aggre￾gating. Conference chair usually works on the reviewer assignment with the regis￾tered information of manuscripts and reviewers, and then solution is addressed within the certain community. Meanwhile, in the project selection of national funding com￾mittee (e.g. NSF), the assignment is firstly run for an optimal solution, and new re￾viewers are invited in case no satisfied solution exists. As the potential reviewer pool is large, committee chair never worries about reviewers’ workload intensive [21,36]. Moreover, some large science communities (e.g. AAAI) ask reviewers to bid on manuscripts by scanning abstracts, which is taken into consideration for the assign￾ment. The bid behavior had been studied as human-factor noise which influences the preference very much rather than disciplines of manuscripts [31]. Subjects of domain and conflicts of interest are the two main factors in identifying qualified reviewers. Collecting information of these two factors, known as building of knowledge-database, attracts attention of many conference chairs. Domain informa￾tion can be submitted by authors and reviewers during registration; but information of conflict, including collaborative relation, student-advisor-relationship, colleague rela￾tion, is hard to collect. Geller [15] raised this problem to challenge the AI committee to call for an intelligent solution. Furthermore, Geller and Scherl [16] described how to search Internet to generate a potential-reviewers-list. There exists a rich body of literature on peer-review that point out the inadequacies of the current systems. Weber [40] presented his manifestos for changing the journal review processes, since the assignment between manuscripts and reviewers works irrationally and inefficiently. Casati et al. [9] asked for more awareness on the open efficient review model and the reasonable assigning manuscripts to reviewers using information technology along with internet. Some scholars argued that the automatic reviewer assignment approaches bereaved their rights on classifying their own prob￾lems which were treated as the scientists’ most precious possession [34]. And it is said that the taxonomy of disciplines is not changed momentarily, which makes some interdisciplinary researches and frontier of science will never be recognized by the corresponding committee. 3 Assignment Based on Information Retrieval IR used on reviewer assignment focuses on the second phase of RAP, which is com￾puting the matching degree between manuscripts and reviewers. This phase had been approached mainly in four ways: content-based IR, collaborative filtering, hybrid approach of the former two and data mining. One of the earliest RAP solutions found in literature is by IR, since inefficiency of matching degree scoring manually was firstly raised. Using the content-based IR