Collaborative review and revision of textual documents is the core of knowledge work and a promising target for empirical analysis and NLP assistance. Yet, a holistic framework that would allow modeling complex relationships between document revisions, reviews and author responses is lacking. To address this gap, we introduce Re3, a framework for joint analysis of collaborative document revision. We instantiate this framework in the scholarly domain, and present Re3-Sci, a large corpus of aligned scientific paper revisions manually labeled according to their action and intent, and supplemented with the respective peer reviews and human-written edit summaries. We use the new data to provide first empirical insights into collaborative document revision in the academic domain, and to assess the capabilities of state-of-the-art LLMs at automating edit analysis and facilitating text-based collaboration. We make our annotation environment and protocols, the resulting data and experimental code publicly available.

With machine learning conferences growing ever larger, and reviewing processes becoming increasingly elaborate, more data-driven insights into their workings are required. In this report, we present the results of a survey accompanying the first "Learning on Graphs" (LoG) Conference. The survey was directed to evaluate the submission and review process from different perspectives, including authors, reviewers, and area chairs alike. The first "Learning on Graphs" (LoG) Conference (9-12 December, 2022) was remarkable in more ways than one: starting from scratch, the conference aims to be the place for graph learning research, making use of an advisory committee that consists of international experts in the field. Moreover, at is core, LoG wants to be known for its exceptional review quality.

Modern Code Review (MCR) is the process of reviewing new code changes that need to be merged with an existing codebase. As a developer, one may receive many code review requests every day, i.e., the review requests need to be prioritised. Manually prioritising review requests is a challenging and time-consuming process. To address the above problem, we conducted an industrial case study at Ericsson aiming at developing a tool called Pineapple, which uses a Bayesian Network to prioritise code review requests. To validate our approach/tool, we deployed it in a live software development project at Ericsson, wherein more than 150 developers develop a telecommunication product. We focused on evaluating the predictive performance, feasibility, and usefulness of our approach. The results indicate that Pineapple has competent predictive performance (RMSE = 0.21 and MAE = 0.15). Furthermore, around 82.6% of Pineapple's users believe the tool can support code review request prioritisation by providing reliable results, and around 56.5% of the users believe it helps reducing code review lead time. As future work, we plan to evaluate Pineapple's predictive performance, usefulness, and feasibility through a longitudinal investigation.