>This is what's done every year at the AI conferences. No need for a new voting system. Not really. Academia rarely ranks things important to the application (

>This is what's done every year at the AI conferences. No need for a new voting system. Not really. Academia rarely ranks things important to the application (aka industry) of a field of study. An efficiency improvement that completely changes the economics of something would likely be rejected from an academic conference for being 'incremental'. Similarly, 'novel' work is much more highly rewarded in these conferences than improvements to existing techniques, experiment replications, or negative results, all of which are more important to industry. Bibliometrics are garbage and represent little more than a popularity contest (and what is controversial). It's basically like if you took up votes and down votes on reddit and just had them both increment a single score. If they were worth anything, there wouldn't be such a thing as review papers that highlight important developments.