  To prevent potential bias in the paper review and selection process for
conferences and journals, most include double blind review. Despite this,
studies show that bias still exists. Recommendation algorithms for paper review
also may have implicit bias. We offer three fair methods that specifically take
into account author diversity in paper recommendation to address this. Our
methods provide fair outcomes across many protected variables concurrently, in
contrast to typical fair algorithms that only use one protected variable. Five
demographic characteristics-gender, ethnicity, career stage, university rank,
and geolocation-are included in our multidimensional author profiles. The
Overall Diversity approach uses a score for overall diversity to rank
publications. The Round Robin Diversity technique chooses papers from authors
who are members of each protected group in turn, whereas the Multifaceted
Diversity method chooses papers that initially fill the demographic feature
with the highest importance. We compare the effectiveness of author diversity
profiles based on Boolean and continuous-valued features. By selecting papers
from a pool of SIGCHI 2017, DIS 2017, and IUI 2017 papers, we recommend papers
for SIGCHI 2017 and evaluate these algorithms using the user profiles. We
contrast the papers that were recommended with those that were selected by the
conference. We find that utilizing profiles with either Boolean or continuous
feature values, all three techniques boost diversity while just slightly
decreasing utility or not decreasing. By choosing authors who are 42.50% more
diverse and with a 2.45% boost in utility, our best technique, Multifaceted
Diversity, suggests a set of papers that match demographic parity. The
selection of grant proposals, conference papers, journal articles, and other
academic duties might all use this strategy.
