3 ms·
Actually, this is a problem that runs through all of academia, and is hardly confined to crypto. Program committee members (at least in computer science) seldom
by mayank 13y ago
Actually, this is a problem that runs through all of academia, and is hardly confined to crypto. Program committee members (at least in computer science) seldom have the time to thoroughly review submissions, and computer science papers submitted elsewhere (say, PNAS or Science) are rarely given a thorough review by computer scientists.
As a particularly fun example, see this fun example of a computer vision paper that was published in Science in 2008, titled "100% Accuracy in Automatic Face Recognition", published by two psychologists:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5862/435.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5862/435.abstract
The title should say enough to anyone who has the faintest idea about computer vision. Then read this very politely-worded response:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5891/912.3.full http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5891/912.3.full
- mtdewcmu 13y agoThat was a very patient and kindly-worded response. I'd think that a psychology background would teach exactly the wrong lessons about the use of statistics in hard technology problems. In psychology research, the function of statistics is to persuade other psychologists, and persuading other psychologists of the importance of your research is the sole measure of success or failure. They're not used to find flaws in one's own work. As for poorly-reviewed papers, it must be embarrassing when they make headlines.