3 ms·

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 ke

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.

robotresearcher 3y ago
> i mentioned the other project in my paper and pointed out the distinctions. You said the reviewer dug it up. You didn't say you cited it. That's a very different situation! I've edited my comment to reflect the new information.
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  i also didn't tell you what my favorite color is nor my wife's maiden name - maybe you shouldn't be such a presumptuous condescending <word>. again if you don't believe me, it doesn't matter. the paper exists and the reviews exist and the email exchange with the PC exists and i have shown all of these things to my own committee (and if i knew who you were and trusted you, i would show them to you as well). > I've edited my comment to reflect the new information. your edits further cements your position as presumptuous and obliging of a process that warrants/merits no such thing.
  - robotresearcher 3y ago
    I marked the edit as such. Not a stealth edit.
  - robotresearcher 3y ago
    I've believed everything you said, when you said it. The difference between "My paper got rejected because a reviewer dug up some vaguely similar thing from 3 years ago" and "I mentioned the other project in my paper and pointed out the distinctions." seems to me to be quite important. After hearing the first by itself, the second came as a surprise.
    - mathisfun123 3y ago
      They dug it up as a cause for rejection, like one digs up skeletons in someone's closet to discredit them. I'm pretty exhausted from dealing with this and now explaining it to you but I have an update: I've just now gotten an email from the PC (after emailing them yesterday pointing out the flaws in reviewer 3's reasoning) saying I'm welcome to come present (and highlight the differences) in a "lightning talk" that won't be published in the proceedings. Looks like they're going with the "do it for the exposure" influencer model. I've declined the "opportunity".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

robotresearcher 3y ago

> i mentioned the other project in my paper and pointed out the distinctions. You said the reviewer dug it up. You didn't say you cited it. That's a very different situation! I've edited my comment to reflect the new information.

mathisfun123 3y ago
i also didn't tell you what my favorite color is nor my wife's maiden name - maybe you shouldn't be such a presumptuous condescending <word>. again if you don't believe me, it doesn't matter. the paper exists and the reviews exist and the email exchange with the PC exists and i have shown all of these things to my own committee (and if i knew who you were and trusted you, i would show them to you as well). > I've edited my comment to reflect the new information. your edits further cements your position as presumptuous and obliging of a process that warrants/merits no such thing.
- robotresearcher 3y ago
  I marked the edit as such. Not a stealth edit.
- robotresearcher 3y ago
  I've believed everything you said, when you said it. The difference between "My paper got rejected because a reviewer dug up some vaguely similar thing from 3 years ago" and "I mentioned the other project in my paper and pointed out the distinctions." seems to me to be quite important. After hearing the first by itself, the second came as a surprise.
  - mathisfun123 3y ago
    They dug it up as a cause for rejection, like one digs up skeletons in someone's closet to discredit them. I'm pretty exhausted from dealing with this and now explaining it to you but I have an update: I've just now gotten an email from the PC (after emailing them yesterday pointing out the flaws in reviewer 3's reasoning) saying I'm welcome to come present (and highlight the differences) in a "lightning talk" that won't be published in the proceedings. Looks like they're going with the "do it for the exposure" influencer model. I've declined the "opportunity".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]