Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

An author's cost for a coauthored submission equals one over the harmonic number of coauthors.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-27 11:13 UTC pith:LCX7XO4D

load-bearing objection The paper proposes a harmonic-number quota for coauthored submissions that aims to credit real collaboration while limiting fake-author gaming, plus a three-parameter generalization. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.10293 v1 pith:LCX7XO4D submitted 2026-06-09 cs.DL cs.GT

How Many Submissions May an Author Make? A Harmonic Quota for Submissions under Coauthorship

Nihar B. Shah This is my paper
classification cs.DL cs.GT
keywords harmonic quotacoauthorshipsubmission limitsresearch evaluationquota manipulationcollaborative authorshipresource allocation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes the Harmonic Quota Rule to decide how many submissions an author may make when papers have multiple authors. Under the rule each author pays a fractional cost equal to the reciprocal of the harmonic number of the paper's author count, so a solo paper costs one full unit while a ten-author paper costs each author only about one-sixth of a unit. The rule is derived to lower the per-person burden of genuine collaborations without letting authors inflate their effective quota by adding many fake coauthors. A generalized version lets organizers set three parameters to recover this rule or other natural alternatives. Current systems charge every coauthor the full unit cost, which the authors argue over-penalizes large teams and under-penalizes quota manipulation.

Core claim

The Harmonic Quota Rule assigns each author a submission cost of 1/H_k, where H_k is the k-th harmonic number and k is the number of coauthors on the paper. This functional form is obtained by requiring that the rule respect the joint reviewing effort of real teams while ensuring that adding spurious coauthors cannot reduce an individual's total cost below the solo-author baseline. The Generalized Harmonic Quota Rule extends the same idea to a three-parameter family that includes the harmonic rule and several other intuitive quota schemes as special cases.

What carries the argument

The Harmonic Quota Rule, which sets each author's submission cost to the reciprocal of the harmonic number of the paper's author count.

Load-bearing premise

The reciprocal of the harmonic number is the correct mathematical form that trades off respect for real collaborations against resistance to adding fake coauthors.

What would settle it

An experiment or simulation in which a different cost function, such as 1 over the number of authors or a fixed per-author cost, produces both higher genuine collaboration rates and lower rates of spurious-author addition than the harmonic rule.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A paper with k authors charges each author only 1/H_k units against their personal quota.
  • Adding extra authors lowers each person's cost but raises the sum of all costs, limiting the benefit of manipulation.
  • The same three-parameter framework can reproduce several other quota rules by changing the parameter values.
  • The rule applies directly to any setting that allocates scarce review or resource slots among coauthored submissions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same cost schedule could be used for allocating other shared resources such as compute hours or observing time when multiple investigators share credit.
  • Empirical tests could compare submission patterns before and after adoption to measure changes in team size and in the frequency of very large author lists.
  • If the harmonic form proves stable, conferences or funders could publish the exact cost table so authors know the quota impact of adding or removing collaborators.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the Harmonic Quota Rule for managing author-level submission limits in journals, conferences, and funders. Under this rule, the cost charged to an author for a submission with n coauthors equals the reciprocal of the nth harmonic number (1/H_n). The authors claim a principled derivation that balances respect for genuine multi-author collaborations against resistance to manipulation via addition of spurious coauthors. They further introduce a Generalized Harmonic Quota Rule framework controlled by three interpretable parameters that subsumes the harmonic rule and other natural quota policies. An interactive organizer tool is provided.

Significance. If the derivation is sound, the work supplies a low-parameter, axiomatically motivated model for scarce-resource allocation that directly addresses a practical tension in research evaluation systems. The explicit treatment of manipulation resistance and the provision of a generalized framework with interpretable knobs are strengths; the interactive tool further increases potential policy impact in digital libraries and conference management.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Derivation): The central claim that 1/H_n emerges from balancing the two desiderata is load-bearing, yet the manuscript does not supply the explicit sequence of axioms, functional equations, or uniqueness argument that selects the harmonic form over alternatives such as 1/n or logarithmic forms. Without these steps, it is impossible to verify that the rule satisfies the stated resistance properties for all n rather than by construction.
  2. [§4] §4 (Generalized rule, Eq. defining the three-parameter family): The framework is presented as subsuming multiple rules via three parameters, but the manuscript does not demonstrate how an organizer would set the parameters from observable quantities or desiderata without introducing new degrees of freedom; a sensitivity analysis or mapping table is needed to establish that the generalization remains principled rather than merely flexible.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction should include a one-sentence statement of the three parameters and their interpretations so readers can immediately grasp the scope of the generalized framework.
  2. [§2] Notation for the harmonic number H_n should be defined at first use with an explicit formula or reference, and consistency checked across equations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on the derivation and the generalized framework. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and verifiability.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Derivation): The central claim that 1/H_n emerges from balancing the two desiderata is load-bearing, yet the manuscript does not supply the explicit sequence of axioms, functional equations, or uniqueness argument that selects the harmonic form over alternatives such as 1/n or logarithmic forms. Without these steps, it is impossible to verify that the rule satisfies the stated resistance properties for all n rather than by construction.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit axiomatic presentation. The current text motivates the harmonic rule via the two desiderata and verifies the resulting properties, but does not lay out the full sequence of functional equations or uniqueness argument. In revision we will add a dedicated subsection that states the axioms, derives the harmonic form step by step, and confirms the resistance properties hold for every n. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Generalized rule, Eq. defining the three-parameter family): The framework is presented as subsuming multiple rules via three parameters, but the manuscript does not demonstrate how an organizer would set the parameters from observable quantities or desiderata without introducing new degrees of freedom; a sensitivity analysis or mapping table is needed to establish that the generalization remains principled rather than merely flexible.

    Authors: We accept that practical guidance on parameter selection is currently insufficient. Although the three parameters are described as interpretable, the manuscript provides no explicit mapping from policy goals to values nor any sensitivity checks. We will add both a mapping table linking common desiderata to parameter choices and a sensitivity analysis demonstrating robustness across the parameter space. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation presented as modeling choice from stated principles

full rationale

The paper frames the Harmonic Quota Rule as derived from balancing two desiderata (respecting collaborations vs. resisting spurious-author manipulation) and introduces a three-parameter generalized framework that subsumes it and other rules. No equations, self-citations, or data-fitting steps are visible in the abstract that would reduce the claimed functional form (reciprocal of harmonic number) to a fitted input or prior self-referential result by construction. The proposal is explicitly a normative modeling choice rather than a prediction or theorem whose output is forced by its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only; the ledger records the core modeling choices stated in the proposal. The harmonic functional form and the three parameters are treated as chosen elements rather than derived from external data.

free parameters (1)
  • three interpretable parameters of the generalized rule
    The generalized framework requires organizers to specify three parameters; these are not derived from data but chosen to select among quota variants.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption An author's cost for a submission should decrease with the number of coauthors
    Invoked to respect collaborations; stated in the description of the harmonic rule.
  • domain assumption The quota rule must resist manipulation by addition of spurious authors
    Core tension the derivation is said to navigate; appears in the abstract's justification for the rule.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5753 in / 1437 out tokens · 27281 ms · 2026-06-27T11:13:40.599533+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Research evaluation systems -- including journals, conferences, and funders -- are increasingly using author-level submission limits to manage growing submission loads. Most existing policies charge each submission as a unit cost against every coauthor's quota. This treats a solo-authored submission and a large collaborative submission identically for each author, even though the reviewing demand of a collaborative submission is jointly attributable to many authors rather than one. Thus we ask the question: how many submissions may an author make under coauthorships? We propose a "Harmonic Quota Rule", in which an author's cost for a submission decreases with the number of coauthors as the reciprocal of their harmonic number. We derive this rule in a principled manner that navigates the tension between respecting collaborations and being resistant to manipulation by adding spurious authors. We also develop a Generalized Harmonic Quota Rule, a framework that subsumes the Harmonic Quota Rule and other natural quota rules. Our framework requires specification of only three interpretable parameters, thereby enabling organizers to choose among various seemingly disparate rules. Our work may also be useful in other scarce-resource allocation settings, such as allocation of compute and telescope time. An interactive tool is available at https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~nihars/quota/organizer.html

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10293 by Nihar B. Shah.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Maximum number of submissions an author can make if each of their submissions has [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Submission Responsibility Matters: Role-Aware Submission Quotas under Coauthorship

    cs.DL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A role-aware submission quota framework that differentiates author responsibilities to manage peer-review load more fairly than symmetric coauthorship rules.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    ACCESS Allocations Policies

    ACCESS Allocations . ACCESS Allocations Policies . https://allocations.access-ci.org/allocations-policy, 2026. Accessed: 2026-06-03

    2026

  2. [2]

    Changes to reviewer volunteering requirement and incentives in M ay 2025 cycle ( EMNLP 2025), 2025

    ACL Rolling Review . Changes to reviewer volunteering requirement and incentives in M ay 2025 cycle ( EMNLP 2025), 2025. Prolific authors are asked to increase reviewing load proportionally to submissions; non-compliance may lead to desk rejection. https://aclrollingreview.org/incentives2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    General User Proposals

    Advanced Light Source . General User Proposals . https://als.lbl.gov/general-user-proposals/, 2026. Accessed: 2026-06-03

    2026

  4. [4]

    INCITE Allocation Program

    Argonne Leadership Computing Facility . INCITE Allocation Program . https://www.alcf.anl.gov/science/incite-allocation-program, 2026. Accessed: 2026-06-03

    2026

  5. [5]

    `` P ainful measures'' to limit resubmissions needed, says ERC head, April 2026

    Simon Baker. `` P ainful measures'' to limit resubmissions needed, says ERC head, April 2026. ERC president announced tighter resubmission restrictions to manage a surge in applications; each peer-review panel now handles over 250 proposals, up from 50--150. Partially reversed after researcher backlash. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/painful-me...

    2026

  6. [6]

    Enhancing peer review in astronomy: A machine learning and optimization approach to reviewer assignments for alma

    John M Carpenter, Andrea Corvill \'o n, and Nihar B Shah. Enhancing peer review in astronomy: A machine learning and optimization approach to reviewer assignments for alma. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , 137(3):034501, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Dissecting submission limit in desk-rejections: A mathematical analysis of fairness in AI conference policies

    Yuefan Cao, Xiaoyu Li, Yingyu Liang, Zhizhou Sha, Zhenmei Shi, Zhao Song, and Jiahao Zhang. Dissecting submission limit in desk-rejections: A mathematical analysis of fairness in AI conference policies. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning , 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    CVPR 2026 author guidelines, 2025

    CVPR 2026 Program Chairs . CVPR 2026 author guidelines, 2025. Each author is limited to a maximum of 25 paper submissions. https://cvpr.thecvf.com/Conferences/2026/AuthorGuidelines

    2026

  9. [9]

    A principled approach to randomized selection under uncertainty: Applications to peer review and grant funding

    Alexander Goldberg, Giulia Fanti, and Nihar Shah. A principled approach to randomized selection under uncertainty: Applications to peer review and grant funding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2026. Blog post: https://researchonresearch.blog/2025/07/12/randomizing-selection-under-uncertainty-designing-principled-partial-lotteries-for-...

    2026

  10. [10]

    Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis

    Nils T Hagen. Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS One , 3(12):e4021, 2008

    2008

  11. [11]

    Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably--not equally, geometrically or arithmetically

    Nils Hagen. Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably--not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics , 84(3):785--793, 2010

    2010

  12. [12]

    Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy

    Nils T Hagen. Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy. Journal of Informetrics , 7(4):784--791, 2013

    2013

  13. [13]

    Publication credit

    Susan E Hodge and David A Greenberg. Publication credit. Science , 213(4511):950--950, 1981

    1981

  14. [14]

    Rethinking the funding line at the S wiss national science foundation: B ayesian ranking and lottery

    Rachel Heyard, Manuela Ott, Georgia Salanti, and Matthias Egger. Rethinking the funding line at the S wiss national science foundation: B ayesian ranking and lottery. Statistics and Public Policy , 2022

    2022

  15. [15]

    ICCV 2025 author guidelines, 2025

    ICCV 2025 Program Chairs . ICCV 2025 author guidelines, 2025. The maximum number of submissions per author is limited to 25 papers. https://iccv.thecvf.com/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuidelines

    2025

  16. [16]

    IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications Policies and Guidelines

    IEEE Communications Society . IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications Policies and Guidelines . https://www.comsoc.org/publications/journals/ieee-twc/policies-guidelines, 2026. Accessed: 2026-06-03

    2026

  17. [17]

    Call for Papers: 48th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy

    IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy . Call for Papers: 48th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy . https://sp2027.ieee-security.org/cfpapers.html, 2027. Accessed: 2026-06-09

    2027

  18. [18]

    IJCAI-ECAI 2026 call for papers (main track), 2026

    IJCAI-ECAI 2026 Program Chairs . IJCAI-ECAI 2026 call for papers (main track), 2026. Primary Paper Initiative: USD 100 fee per submission, waived for papers where no author appears on another submission. https://2026.ijcai.org/ijcai-ecai-2026-call-for-papers-main-track/

    2026

  19. [19]

    NSF CISE : Core programs ( F uture C o R e), NSF 24-589, 2024

    National Science Foundation . NSF CISE : Core programs ( F uture C o R e), NSF 24-589, 2024. During any contiguous 12-month period, an individual may not participate as PI, co-PI, or Senior/Key Personnel in more than two proposals across all project classes. https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/future-core-computer-information-science-engineering-fut...

    2024

  20. [20]

    NIH policy on limiting number of applications per principal investigator, 2025

    National Institutes of Health . NIH policy on limiting number of applications per principal investigator, 2025. Effective September 25, 2025, NIH accepts no more than six new, renewal, resubmission, or revision applications per PI per calendar year. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/research/2025/07/22/nih-limit-ai-use-cap-grant-applicati...

    2025

  21. [21]

    User Guide: Applying for Beam Time

    National Synchrotron Light Source II . User Guide: Applying for Beam Time . https://www.bnl.gov/nsls2/userguide/access/, 2026. Accessed: 2026-06-03

    2026

  22. [22]

    PVLDB volume 20 submission guidelines, 2026

    PVLDB Editors-in-Chief . PVLDB volume 20 submission guidelines, 2026. Introduces a yearly cap of twelve papers per author and a cap of two papers per author per month. https://www.vldb.org/2027/submission-guidelines.html

    2026

  23. [23]

    How do authors' perceptions of their papers compare with co-authors' perceptions and peer-review decisions? PLOS ONE , 2024

    Charvi Rastogi, Ivan Stelmakh, Alina Beygelzimer, Yann N Dauphin, Percy Liang, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Zhenyu Xue, Hal Daum \'e III, Emma Pierson, and Nihar B Shah. How do authors' perceptions of their papers compare with co-authors' perceptions and peer-review decisions? PLOS ONE , 2024. Blog post: https://blog.ml.cmu.edu/2022/11/22/neurips2021-author-...

    2024

  24. [24]

    Nihar B. Shah. AI meets Peer Review: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly . NeurIPS 2025 Social on AI in Peer Review, 2025. https://cs.cmu.edu/ nihars/tutorials/AI_meets_Peer_Review_2025.pdf. Accessed: 2026-05-27

    2025

  25. [25]

    Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review

    Nihar B Shah. Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review. Communications of the ACM. Extended version: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/ nihars/preprints/SurveyPeerReview.pdf, June 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    The ICML 2023 ranking experiment: Examining author self-assessment in ML/AI peer review

    Buxin Su, Jiayao Zhang, Natalie Collina, Yuling Yan, Didong Li, Kyunghyun Cho, Jianqing Fan, Aaron Roth, and Weijie Su. The ICML 2023 ranking experiment: Examining author self-assessment in ML/AI peer review. Journal of the American Statistical Association , pages 1--12, 2025

    2023

  27. [27]

    National Science Foundation

    U.S. National Science Foundation . Guidance on Proposals with Ship Time . https://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/updates/guidance-proposals-ship-time, July 2024. Accessed: 2026-06-03

    2024