3 ms·
I have reviewed more CS papers than I want to remember, and 80% of them are abysmal in quality. Most of them are papers that undergrads wrote for a class, that
by coreyp_1 11y ago
I have reviewed more CS papers than I want to remember, and 80% of them are abysmal in quality. Most of them are papers that undergrads wrote for a class, that they then hope to publish on the off chance that it will be accepted. "Off chance" is the important part of that phrase.
Obviously some of the reviewer comments are out of line or show incompetence, but others are simply reflecting the effort that the authors put into the paper. It really is that bad at times!
- mikk14 11y agoYeah, it is rather unfair to point your finger against a reviewer's comment without having a look at the paper too. I've come across papers for which some of these comments would be even too kind. This blog is funnier if you're able to mentally classify the posts in four bins: - Clearly clueless reviewer (e.g. "The reported mean of 7.7 is misleading because it appears that close to half of your participants are scoring below that mean") - Reviewer just trying to keep the tone light in a funny way (e.g. "Unless the authors performed some clever pagan ritual before euthanizing the animals I would use ‘killed’ (or ‘euthanized’) instead of ‘sacrificed"). - Merciless and sarcastic destruction of what was very likely just garbage anyway (e.g. "This looks like a very early draft"). - Just a butthurt author's reaction (e.g. " I have read this paper several times through, and I have nothing to say in its defense.").