Adverts for Nike, Superdry and Lacoste have been banned for making misleading claims about their green credentials. The UK's advertising watchdog challenged the brands over the use of the word sustainable in paid-for Google ads which were not backed up by evidence of their sustainability. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) identified three adverts from the retailers promising customers sustainable materials, sustainable style and sustainable clothing. The UK's advertising code states that the basis of claims about environmental sustainability must be clear and supported by a high level of substantiation. In each case, it asked the companies for evidence to back up the claims about the sustainability of the products.

With the increasing amount of problematic peer reviews in top AI conferences, the community is urgently in need of automatic quality control measures. In this paper, we restrict our attention to substantiation -- one popular quality aspect indicating whether the claims in a review are sufficiently supported by evidence -- and provide a solution automatizing this evaluation process. To achieve this goal, we first formulate the problem as claim-evidence pair extraction in scientific peer reviews, and collect SubstanReview, the first annotated dataset for this task. SubstanReview consists of 550 reviews from NLP conferences annotated by domain experts. On the basis of this dataset, we train an argument mining system to automatically analyze the level of substantiation in peer reviews. We also perform data analysis on the SubstanReview dataset to obtain meaningful insights on peer reviewing quality in NLP conferences over recent years.

The job was remarkably analog: a bundle of newspapers would be dropped off at my house, I would wrap them in rubber-bands (or plastic bags if it were raining), load them up in a canvas sack, and set off on my bike; once a month my parents would drive me around to collect payment. Little did I appreciate just how essential my role writ large was to the profitability of newspapers generally. Newspapers liked to think that they made money because people relied on them for news, furnished by their fearless reporters and hard-working editors; not only did people pay newspapers directly, but advertisers were also delighted to pay for the privilege of having their products placed next to the journalists' peerless prose. The Internet revealed the fatal flaw in this worldview: what newspapers provided was distribution thanks to infrastructure like printing presses and yours truly. Once the Internet reduced distribution costs to zero, three truths emerged: first, that "news", once published, retained no economic value.