Why doesn't the ML research community limit the number of submissions per author? [D]
Mirrored from r/MachineLearning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
I am currently working across multiple research communities, and I've noticed that the ML community is struggling with a massive volume of submissions, which is affecting review quality (as we are seeing in the recent ARR cycles).
I am wondering what the reasoning is for not limiting the number of submissions per author?
This practice has been successfully used in other research areas for years, such as Security (e.g., CCS) or Computer Architecture (e.g., DAC), to help keep workloads manageable. Is there a particular cultural reason why the ML community chooses a different approach?
[link] [comments]
More from r/MachineLearning
-
For the people who got reviews back from neurips, cvpr, eccv, etc and also tested their paper through an agentic reviewer like the stanford one, how different were the reviews? [D]
Aug 14
-
Building text to ASCII diffusion model , need advice and guidance [P]
Aug 14
-
A collision-entropy floor for watermark/retrieval AI-text detection. Looking for a sanity check before I take this further [D]
Aug 14
-
Are supervised and unsupervised learning still relevant today? [D]
Aug 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.