{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2013:TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2","short_pith_number":"pith:TTUI4ML3","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"9ce88e317b241ae8b2a8a7a90489af66b860e9dcbfb47d4690a2bf6d09e3e52d","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"1307.6528","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Incentives, Quality, and Risks: A Look Into the NSF Proposal Review Pilot","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.SI","physics.soc-ph"],"primary_cat":"cs.GT","authors_text":"Mingyan Liu, Parinaz Naghizadeh","submitted_at":"2013-07-24T18:45:06Z","abstract_excerpt":"The National Science Foundation (NSF) will be experimenting with a new distributed approach to reviewing proposals, whereby a group of principal investigators (PIs) or proposers in a subfield act as reviewers for the proposals submitted by the same set of PIs. To encourage honesty, PIs' chances for getting funded are tied to the quality of their reviews (with respect to the reviews provided by the entire group), in addition to the quality of their proposals. Intuitively, this approach can more fairly distribute the review workload, discourage frivolous proposal submission, and encourage high q"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"1307.6528","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","primary_cat":"cs.GT","submitted_at":"2013-07-24T18:45:06Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.SI","physics.soc-ph"],"title_canon_sha256":"e26bf680db3612adb00c9c593e644133316b760c8d0081339ea03c6c31d98807","abstract_canon_sha256":"8d30a870e3b5fad50f6376262ef00edb52fdb3a2db0d83d2350aa10e5e241650"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-05-18T03:17:36.244513Z","signature_b64":"E0fztM7ktGDmq5Mum9tvIQ6+M0ZE6GYukMDZttbNfmMkG3uv4JF+Yps8PJrYnsKWuh5uDFOEUhgK87/6y24CAA==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"9ce88e317b241ae8b2a8a7a90489af66b860e9dcbfb47d4690a2bf6d09e3e52d","last_reissued_at":"2026-05-18T03:17:36.243924Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-05-18T03:17:36.243924Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Incentives, Quality, and Risks: A Look Into the NSF Proposal Review Pilot","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.SI","physics.soc-ph"],"primary_cat":"cs.GT","authors_text":"Mingyan Liu, Parinaz Naghizadeh","submitted_at":"2013-07-24T18:45:06Z","abstract_excerpt":"The National Science Foundation (NSF) will be experimenting with a new distributed approach to reviewing proposals, whereby a group of principal investigators (PIs) or proposers in a subfield act as reviewers for the proposals submitted by the same set of PIs. To encourage honesty, PIs' chances for getting funded are tied to the quality of their reviews (with respect to the reviews provided by the entire group), in addition to the quality of their proposals. Intuitively, this approach can more fairly distribute the review workload, discourage frivolous proposal submission, and encourage high q"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"1307.6528","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"1307.6528","created_at":"2026-05-18T03:17:36.244025+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"1307.6528v1","created_at":"2026-05-18T03:17:36.244025+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.1307.6528","created_at":"2026-05-18T03:17:36.244025+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"TTUI4ML3EQNO","created_at":"2026-05-18T12:28:02.375192+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"TTUI4ML3EQNORMVI","created_at":"2026-05-18T12:28:02.375192+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"TTUI4ML3","created_at":"2026-05-18T12:28:02.375192+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":1,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.18752","citing_title":"Traditional statistical representations outperform generative AI in identifying expert peer reviewers","ref_index":7,"is_internal_anchor":true}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2","json":"https://pith.science/pith/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/TTUI4ML3"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/TTUI4ML3","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=1307.6528&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/TTUI4ML3EQNORMVIU6UQJCNPM2/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-05-18T03:17:36.244025+00:00","updated_at":"2026-05-18T03:17:36.244025+00:00"}