同行评议是审阅投稿论文的环节之一，它将投稿论文分配给合适的评审者进行审阅。以往对评审者分配的研究主要考虑投稿论文与评审者的主题匹配，没有考虑规避待评审论文与评审者的潜在利益冲突关系。本文基于学者和科研机构的学术网络，研究如何在论文-评审者分配问题中，规避待评审论文与评审者之间的潜在利益冲突关系。首先，基于学者的学术活动，本文构建了学者和科研机构的学术关系网络。接着，基于这些学术关系网络，估计待评审论文所代表的团体与评审者之间的潜在利益冲突关系；基于文本主题相似度，估计待评审论文与评审者的研究主题匹配程度。然后，将投稿论文-评审者的最优化分配过程转化为一个最小花费最大流问题，求出最小化利益冲突程度和最大化主题匹配程度的最优论文-评审者分配。根据大量真实的学术活动数据集和一个学术会议的投稿论文分配审稿人任务，本文通过多组实验测试了本文提出的方法，实验结果验证了本文方法的有效性和可用性。

Peer-review is the most common practice for accessing submitted papers. Previous research mainly focused on maximizing topic relevance and avoiding direct Conflict of Interest relationship between submitted papers and reviewers. However, potential relationships of Conflict of Interests were not considered which might cause unfair in review process. As a result, in this research, an approach of paper-reviewer assignment was proposed considering potential Conflict of Interests between authors of submitted papers and reviewers. First, academic networks of scholar-to-scholar and institution-to-institution were extracted from academic activities records. Second, potential conflict of interests of papers-reviewers were measured utilizing paths between related authors and reviewers on academic networks, topic relevance of papers-reviewers were measured using similarity between submitted papers and publications of reviewers. Third, the paper-reviewer assignment approach was linked to a minimum cost maximum flow problem, which maximized topic relevance and minimized Conflict of Interests under the given constraints. With a big volume of real scholar data and a real task of conference paper-reviewer assignment, the proposed approach was evaluated. The experimental results validated the effectiveness of the proposed approach.