Would a 2000-2021 ML paper even get accepted today? [D]
Mirrored from r/MachineLearning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
I keep hearing some version of this:
“A paper that got accepted years ago wouldn’t stand a chance today.”
Honestly, for a lot of ML subfields, this doesn’t sound crazy anymore.
A paper that once looked solid can now look under-evaluated, under-ablated, weak on baselines, or just too obvious.
So maybe the real claim is:
A mediocre accepted ML paper from years ago would probably get rejected today.
Do people agree? Has the bar actually gone up, or has the field just become more crowded and more competitive?
[link] [comments]
More from r/MachineLearning
-
A map of the latest 11 million papers split by semantic similarity and time slices [P]
Jun 30
-
Update on CVIL: the free CV interview prep checklist after landing my internship... just added Segmentation, OCR, and VLM sections [D]
Jun 30
-
EACL 2027: Author response and author-reviewer discussion are now two separate stages and allow more time [D]
Jun 30
-
Loss functions in Instance Representation Learning [R]
Jun 29
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.