4 ms·
People run conferences through openreview. You sign up as an organizer, people submit papers, and reviewers review them. Then a final decision is made about acc
by light_hue_1 3y ago
People run conferences through openreview. You sign up as an organizer, people submit papers, and reviewers review them. Then a final decision is made about acceptance.
As a non-expert, I think that openreview is basically useless for you. The signal to noise ratio is terrible. It's just like arxiv.
Just because a paper got good reviews, doesn't make it a good paper. And just because it got bad reviews, doesn't mean it's a bad paper. Conference reviews are pretty random. A lot of good work is rejected and a mountain of trash is accepted.
At the moment we're massively short on competent reviewers, so the level of commentary of openreview is.. "oh look, my racist uncle commented on cnn.com again"-level abysmal.
- sdenton4 3y ago+1 to this. I've been orienting away from ML conferences because the review process is so bad; it's an incredible amount of wasted work responding to and re-submitting things after getting a bad crop of reviewers. Honestly it also makes me despair for the quality of the conferences themselves.
- light_hue_1 3y agoSadly if you're an academic it's a game you must play. My students need papers so that they get jobs and I need them to get grants. But yeah. We all waste an incredible amount of time resubmitting to another conference for no reason at all.
- sdenton4 3y agoFor my group, there's journals and a whole ecosystem outside of the ml conference space related to the actual application area... We can go to a top-tier journal in the application domain and get better reviewers.