TMLR reached out to the authors of 10 papers slated for desk rejection, in an attempt to understand if the authors could explain the paper they submitted [D]
Mirrored from r/MachineLearning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
You can read more here: https://medium.com/@TmlrOrg/asking-authors-about-their-own-papers-3d2e04e5dee0
The results are (imho) concerning. Taken from the article:
Of the ten submissions:
- Authors of one paper withdrew their submission.
- Authors of one paper said they were unavailable due to other commitments.
- Authors of one paper scheduled a meeting but did not show up.
- Authors of three papers were unable to answer basic questions about the paper.
- Authors of three papers answered questions about high-level ideas in the paper but had difficulty when asked further questions on technical details.
- Authors of one paper answered all of my questions (although [the interviewer, the Co-EiC] identified a major flaw in that paper)
[link] [comments]
More from r/MachineLearning
-
I turned my dog Jackies Brain into a working AI [P]
Oct 14
-
Event2Vec: additive event embeddings where a linear score on a history decomposes exactly into per-event terms [P]
Oct 14
-
Binary noise classification using CRNN mean teacher algo [R]
Oct 14
-
Localized Neural learning vs backpropagation [D]
Oct 14
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.