Evaluating design ideas is necessary to predict their success and assess their impact early on in the process. Existing methods rely either on metrics computed by systems that are effective but subject to errors and bias, or experts' ratings, which are accurate but expensive and long to collect. Crowdsourcing offers a compelling way to evaluate a large number of design ideas in a short amount of time while being cost-effective. Workers' evaluation is, however, less reliable and might substantially differ from experts' evaluation. In this work, we investigate workers' rating behavior and compare it with experts. First, we instrument a crowdsourcing study where we asked workers to evaluate design ideas from three innovation challenges. We show that workers share similar insights with experts but tend to rate more generously and weigh certain criteria more importantly. Next, we develop a hybrid human-AI approach that combines a machine learning model with crowdsourcing to evaluate ideas. Our approach models workers' reliability and bias while leveraging ideas' textual content to train a machine learning model. It is able to incorporate experts' ratings whenever available, to supervise the model training and infer worker performance. Results show that our framework outperforms baseline methods and requires significantly less training data from experts, thus providing a viable solution for evaluating ideas at scale.

Scientific peer review is pivotal to maintain quality standards for academic publication. The effectiveness of the reviewing process is currently being challenged by the rapid increase of paper submissions in various conferences. Those venues need to recruit a large number of reviewers of different levels of expertise and background. The submitted reviews often do not meet the conformity standards of the conferences. Such a situation poses an ever-bigger burden on the meta-reviewers when trying to reach a final decision. In this work, we propose a human-AI approach that estimates the conformity of reviews to the conference standards. Specifically, we ask peers to grade each other's reviews anonymously with respect to important criteria of review conformity such as sufficient justification and objectivity. We introduce a Bayesian framework that learns the conformity of reviews from both the peer grading process, historical reviews and decisions of a conference, while taking into account grading reliability. Our approach helps meta-reviewers easily identify reviews that require clarification and detect submissions requiring discussions while not inducing additional overhead from reviewers. Through a large-scale crowdsourced study where crowd workers are recruited as graders, we show that the proposed approach outperforms machine learning or review grades alone and that it can be easily integrated into existing peer review systems.