4 ms·
>it is not uncommon for many to inflate marginal results or engage in dubious practices, leading to a noise that greatly burdens the reviewers of these journals
by bubblethink 4y ago
>it is not uncommon for many to inflate marginal results or engage in dubious practices, leading to a noise that greatly burdens the reviewers of these journals/conferences ... It is no surprise then, that many low-quality (or downright incorrect) works escape the sieve.
Eh, I blame the reviewers for this in large part. Every reviewer craves novelty like a drug addict. They'll reject papers because "it's not novel, just a bunch of engineering/implementation", or reject them because a mere 1.5x improvement does not meet the bar (Is it even science if it's not an order of magnitude ?). Then people will cry about dubious papers. The academic community deserves this.
- otherme123 4y agoIn my experience you find a lot of spectrum. Keep in mind that reviewers today are the authors tomorrow. Some people in academia are incredibly arrogant and view themselves as the next Feynman, and dismiss marginal advances or small results. Anything under perfection and lots of work behind isn't worth publishing. But you have also the honest ones that can recognize value in the small advances. But in general you are right: we deserve this because the amount of arrogance is too high, and more often than not you have to deal with someone who firmly believes they deserve the Nobel price.