3 ms·
I don't think ML is a good example, because it's an outlier within an outlier. CS is already a weird field, because it leans so heavily on conference papers th
by jltsiren 3y ago
I don't think ML is a good example, because it's an outlier within an outlier.
CS is already a weird field, because it leans so heavily on conference papers that see a single round of reviews. Journal papers with multiple rounds of reviews are more common in other STEM fields. Because of this difference, peer review in CS is more focused on accepting/rejecting the paper than on improving it.
And then the CS model breaks down in ML, which is far too popular for its own good. There are too many people working on the same topics, writing too many papers and submitting them to too few conferences, which have too many people attending. CS conferences are supposed to be more like community meetings than formal conferences. Informal discussions are the main point, but that doesn't scale beyond a few hundred attendees.
- godelski 3y agoHonestly, I agree with every word here. I'd rather see conferences as networking events than quality filters. Conferences should invite published works. The conference system just adds noise, and like you are suggesting, the single round results in a zero sum game and no advocates for the paper to be accepted/improved. Thus reviewers optimize their strategy: reject everything. While I still have problems with peer review and still advocate for open publication, I do think many the the specific issues of ML could be resolved by focusing on journals rather than conferences.