Periodic reminder that CogSci papers are not real papershttps://twitter.com/o_guest/status/1009153043508662272 …
I think there's definitely a culture amongst certain cogsci attendees that really promotes sending as many abstracts as possible every year and somehow this specific group (dare I say clique?) gets many accepted. It's certainly something.
-
-
It's not so difficult to get accepted - 73% of the submissions were accepted this year (perhaps one of the reasons a CogSci proceedings paper isn't seen as a big CV win)
-
This shows in the quality of work submitted to/presented at CogSci. In 5 years of reviewing, I’ve come across *maybe* one paper I would recommend reading 6 months after the conference, and I’ve reviewed quite a few papers from “top labs,” which (unsurprisingly) get in.
-
Yes, my comment wasn't about the general easiness of getting in but the dominance (and I've heard it clearly admitted) of certain names and how certain people try to get as many in as possible. Being able to send 5 abstracts and get 3 accepted is a kind of privilege not afforded
-
to most because it takes time to write and do the work even if like some have said the work isn't 100% polished. Just eyeball the names and some names/lab dominate. That's not (only) a function of how easy it is to get in but something more specific.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No idea what to make of it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

