NeurIPS 2026: Tips that might convince AC? [D]
Mirrored from r/MachineLearning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
So our paper had very good initial reviews but one of the reviewers decreased now their score although we addressed 3 out of 4 weaknesses. There’s no further justification or something like “your results arise more issues”. It seems to be very annoying because why decreasing now and not having assigned the lower score beforehand. I wanted to ask to people that was accepted previously with “middle” scores from reviewers (avg 3.5 for example), because I guess that in those cases AC helped to push up the scores. Did you focus more on the meta review? Was your AC talkative with you, or forcing the reviewers to engage? Our AC has been silent since the meta review but I guess that maybe they are busy with other papers
[link] [comments]
More from r/MachineLearning
-
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
-
TMLR Relevance and Prestige [D]
Aug 13
-
Reproducible canvas-aligned low-level patterns in somerandomllm-generated images and their possible relation to iterative editing artifacts [D]
Aug 13
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.