Assigning same reviewers to two papers just in case they *might* be overlapping is a great way to bias the review system. I am surprised an ML conference fall for such a thing and deliberately bias their review system.
-
-
-
Assigning them to same AC but letting them be reviewed in an unbiased way would be much better. ACs could have easily checked for this case since both getting accepted will be rare anyway.
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Thank you for sharing these insights. Do you have any numbers regarding similar (too thinly sliced) submissions to NeurIPS and how reviewers reacted?
-
Not at this point, since decisions on these are incorporated in the regular review process. That is, we simply asked reviewers and ACs to take that extra information into account when reviewing and rating these submissions, if appropriate.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
"we found 19 submissions to NeurIPS that were determined to significantly overlap in claimed contributions with other submissions from the same authors to different conferences.[...] now been desk rejected": Is there any memory in the system to discourage that kind of scheme?
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.