-
-
-
Exactly. You work for a year and at least you have the expectations that such conferences will give the detailed feedback. This was my first attempt to such p̶r̶e̶s̶t̶i̶g̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ conference
@iclr_conf as undergrad. Very disappointing.
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Is a good solution to really value and credit ACs (make it a real honour and highly vetted somehow?). When I've done it I worked so hard to make sure nobody went home without a good response. I'm no saint, but maybe that's easier than making all reviewers conform?
-
Thanks! We should definitely do a better job of acknowledging the massive commitment and service of ACs. But I worry about giving them too much power where they become the gatekeepers for the field, similar to editors for journals who desk reject papers.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I'm at a loss for how to address reviews that don't make any substantive points. The "pros" section of each review summarizes my listed contributions. The "cons" section of each review summarizes my listed limitations. What more is there to say?
-
They should really add in the pros column "Accurately summarises pros and cons"
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I'm not surprised. Similar experience with
#Neurips2019. You spent a year working on a paper, submit it to the top venue in the field and in return you get a 3-line random (positive or negative) review. And to make it worse ACs are fine with that because they don't have any time. -
If reviews are low quality maybe it is not really a top venue (anymore)
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
i think reviewers confuse it with commenting on reddit.
-
Feels like Fox channel for scientific dissemination
Kraj razgovora
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.