1 / 9

To accept or not to accept: The dilemma of an SPC a case study of AAAI-2013 paper

Delve into the thorough review process of an AAAI-2013 paper, uncovering the opinions of expert reviewers and the dilemma faced by the SPC in deciding on acceptance. Explore the discussion and rebuttal phases, ultimately leading to a conditional acceptance and valuable lessons for authors and reviewers.

valicia
Download Presentation

To accept or not to accept: The dilemma of an SPC a case study of AAAI-2013 paper

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. To accept or not to accept: The dilemma of an SPCa case study of AAAI-2013 paper Ariel Felner Ben-Gurion University Israel

  2. How deep a review can get? • Statistics about the review of the paper • Four reviewers, all experts in the field. • 79 comments - 32,323 words. • Paper itself – 5,576 words.

  3. Agreements between the reviewers • The method nicely extends previous work. • Positive results over a baseline algorithm in a number of different domains • The paper is clear and motivated.

  4. Initial opinions • Reviewers 1&2: weak accept • Reviewer 3: borderline • Issues with the parameters of the new algorithm. • Reviewer 4: weak reject: • Missing crucial experiments: • Did not compare to the algorithm it builds upon • No experiments with other related algorithms

  5. Discussion phase • 79 comments where reviewers discuss the issues • Reviewers try to convince the others to change their opinion.

  6. Rebuttal Phase • Authors in their rebuttal: • “We already have data for several fixed perimeters for the base algorithm…. We will add this data to the paper.”  • The rebuttal and the discussion thereafter did not change the basic opinions.

  7. The dilemma of the SPC • We have two options: • 1) Accept the paper and encourage the authors to address the issues. • 2) Reject the paper. Too many experimental additions are required by the reviewers. Let’s reject it. • Reviewers 1 and 2: clearly vote for accept. • Reviewer 4: clearly vote for reject. • Reviewer 3: sitting on the borderline. • SPC: (as reviewer 5): eplison below the borderline.

  8. Solution • Conditional accept. Let the authors add the missing experiments and we will have another round of reviews.

  9. Lessons to learn: • Authors: • Trust the system. The reviewers and SPC are there for you • Carefully write your rebuttal. • PC: deep discussion will reveal the points of disagreements and the different opinions. • SPC: Try to find creative resolutions. Think beyond the box.

More Related