5 ms·

Pardon me for being a currently pissed off PhD student dealing with a rejected paper but: who gives a fuck? Like honestly what is the harm of someone reinventin

Pardon me for being a currently pissed off PhD student dealing with a rejected paper but: who gives a fuck? Like honestly what is the harm of someone reinventing something, especially when the previous instance is long dead and buried/forgotten (like in this case). Oh it's a waste of resources you say? As if the constant demand for novelty isn't also. My paper got rejected because a reviewer dug up some vaguely similar thing from 3 years ago and claimed it is "well used and well supported" even though the repo has had 3 commits in 3 years. Oh that's an extreme case you say? The presumptive necessity of "novelty" is what enables such extremes. Like the schizophrenia of modern society is hilarious: 15 brands of potato chips is good (competition in the market is healthy) but one molecule in common (in science) and you're a failure.

riku_iki 3y ago
> reviewer dug up is there any way to appeal such decision? it is not healthy when single person can block lots of hard work..
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  nope - welcome to peer review where everything's made up and the points don't matter. note: some venues have a rebuttal phase which 99% doesn't make a difference anyway but this one didn't. note2: if you're thinking i got rejected for some other reason: i got (weak accept, accept, reject) and the lone reject came from the wackadoodle. btw how does (weak accept+accept+reject) == reject? see my earlier comment about how the scores don't matter - i emailed the PC and they said they use the scores to resolve a failure to come to a consensus by the reviewers (which is 180deg the opposite of how a scoring system is used - scoring systems "objectively" measure and then humans break ties). note3: this isn't a podunk conference - it's a big name, prestigious conference.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - robotresearcher 3y ago
    Let's assume that the reviewer is correct and the key idea of the paper is not new. (edit: parent subsequently reports they mention the precedent work in their paper. This is a different scenario. I leave the rest of my comment which was about the scenario as originally described) What's the alternative? You want to present an idea that isn't novel? > how does (weak accept+accept+reject) == reject The editor or program chair that makes the decision knows from Reviewer 3 that the paper is not novel. If the paper's value is based on novelty, it has to be rejected. If the paper has some value other than novelty, edit it to include the key citation and very carefully explain the contribution of the paper, and submit somewhere else. If there is no such contribution, tough. Do a better literature survey next time. > it's a big name, prestigious conference Imagine how you would feel if you were the author of the obscure paper and someone who didn't bother to read it got your idea published in a prestigious conference. > The presumptive necessity of "novelty" is what enables such extremes. Did your paper claim novelty? That claim obviously would need to be removed. Without novelty, what is the contribution? Your paper needs to explain. If the world needs to know about the previous paper, so that the idea is recognized, write a review or case study that highlights it.
    - mathisfun123 3y ago
      people will bend over backwards to accomodate/justify the stupid/biased/rotten practices in peer review. > Let's assume that the reviewer is correct and the key idea of the paper is not new. umm why are we assuming this? i mentioned the other project in my paper and pointed out the distinctions. even so: > You want to present an idea that isn't novel? yes. explain to me in very specific detail what the issue is with that in 2023 where page limits are an anachronism? don't have room at the conference venue itself - i'm fine recording the presentation and putting it up on youtube. > The editor or program chair that makes the decision knows from Reviewer 3 that the paper is not novel. reviewer 3 is demonstrably wrong/lying - my project is distinct and gets more use/support (it has been merged into the upstream core ecoystem project). > If the paper has some value other than novelty, edit it to include the key citation and very carefully explain the contribution of the paper done and done but there's a crucial component you're eliding over - reviewer has to actually read the paper. > Do a better literature survey next time. lol > Imagine how you would feel if you were the author of the obscure paper and someone who didn't bother to read it got your idea published in a prestigious conference. there's no paper. it's a github repo. you see the absurdity grows and grows until one can't even believe that it's possible such a horrible miscarriage of academic justice/honesty was committed. but i have all the receipts as the kids say and the real miscarriage is it's worthless to complain because the entire practice is complete and utter bs.

riku_iki 3y ago

> reviewer dug up is there any way to appeal such decision? it is not healthy when single person can block lots of hard work..

mathisfun123 3y ago
nope - welcome to peer review where everything's made up and the points don't matter. note: some venues have a rebuttal phase which 99% doesn't make a difference anyway but this one didn't. note2: if you're thinking i got rejected for some other reason: i got (weak accept, accept, reject) and the lone reject came from the wackadoodle. btw how does (weak accept+accept+reject) == reject? see my earlier comment about how the scores don't matter - i emailed the PC and they said they use the scores to resolve a failure to come to a consensus by the reviewers (which is 180deg the opposite of how a scoring system is used - scoring systems "objectively" measure and then humans break ties). note3: this isn't a podunk conference - it's a big name, prestigious conference.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- robotresearcher 3y ago
  Let's assume that the reviewer is correct and the key idea of the paper is not new. (edit: parent subsequently reports they mention the precedent work in their paper. This is a different scenario. I leave the rest of my comment which was about the scenario as originally described) What's the alternative? You want to present an idea that isn't novel? > how does (weak accept+accept+reject) == reject The editor or program chair that makes the decision knows from Reviewer 3 that the paper is not novel. If the paper's value is based on novelty, it has to be rejected. If the paper has some value other than novelty, edit it to include the key citation and very carefully explain the contribution of the paper, and submit somewhere else. If there is no such contribution, tough. Do a better literature survey next time. > it's a big name, prestigious conference Imagine how you would feel if you were the author of the obscure paper and someone who didn't bother to read it got your idea published in a prestigious conference. > The presumptive necessity of "novelty" is what enables such extremes. Did your paper claim novelty? That claim obviously would need to be removed. Without novelty, what is the contribution? Your paper needs to explain. If the world needs to know about the previous paper, so that the idea is recognized, write a review or case study that highlights it.
  - mathisfun123 3y ago
    people will bend over backwards to accomodate/justify the stupid/biased/rotten practices in peer review. > Let's assume that the reviewer is correct and the key idea of the paper is not new. umm why are we assuming this? i mentioned the other project in my paper and pointed out the distinctions. even so: > You want to present an idea that isn't novel? yes. explain to me in very specific detail what the issue is with that in 2023 where page limits are an anachronism? don't have room at the conference venue itself - i'm fine recording the presentation and putting it up on youtube. > The editor or program chair that makes the decision knows from Reviewer 3 that the paper is not novel. reviewer 3 is demonstrably wrong/lying - my project is distinct and gets more use/support (it has been merged into the upstream core ecoystem project). > If the paper has some value other than novelty, edit it to include the key citation and very carefully explain the contribution of the paper done and done but there's a crucial component you're eliding over - reviewer has to actually read the paper. > Do a better literature survey next time. lol > Imagine how you would feel if you were the author of the obscure paper and someone who didn't bother to read it got your idea published in a prestigious conference. there's no paper. it's a github repo. you see the absurdity grows and grows until one can't even believe that it's possible such a horrible miscarriage of academic justice/honesty was committed. but i have all the receipts as the kids say and the real miscarriage is it's worthless to complain because the entire practice is complete and utter bs.