Thought this would be a good place to share some of the more ‘interesting’ that popped up for this year’s NIPS. Here’s a few to get started:

  • Their summarization of your paper is just a copy and paste of your introduction/conclusion

  • They argue your paper is not relevant for NIPS despite there being a specific track dedicated to your topic

  • The reviewer goes on to state something mathematically incorrect with high confidence.

  • They cite a parallel NIPS submission on arxiv to be prior work.

For the people new to the research community that are seeing these issues for the first time, you are not alone. Don’t feel bad. Take the constructive criticisms to improve your work and move on.

Also, reach out to your meta-reviewer/chair if you feel there is a legitimate case for additional review. Happy rebuttals.

Source link
thanks you RSS link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here