[D] Many times I feel additional experiments during the rebuttal make my paper worse
Our take
Back in the days when I just started to review for major conferences, it was common to give and receive reviews saying "I don't have major concerns".
In the past 3-5 years, the field has spent significant effort cracking down on low-quality reviews, which is great. But a side effect is that we don't see these kinds of "easy" reviews anymore. It feels like the reviewers are obliged to find something wrong with the paper to show they are doing their job. Even on papers where all reviewers are accepting, it's common for the author to be requested 5-10 additional numbers/plots during rebuttal.
Many times, these experiments are detrimental. Most of them are "what ifs". How about a different backbone, task, dataset, or a specific setting? And whenever something doesn't work (especially during the rebuttal timeframe), the reviewer is having a good "gotcha" moment. I'm not only complaining as an author but also as a reviewer. Several times, I had to step in during the discussion: "I don't think X experiment suggested by Reviewer Y is important," And every time the AC sided with me.
The requirement for experiments should always be "sufficient to support the core claims," not "exhaustively examine every single barely applicable case." Folks, it's OK to say "the paper passes the bar, but I have curiosity questions that do not affect my rating" (I have written this line many times in my reviews).
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- Seems ICML is rejecting MANY unanimous positively rated papers [D]My 4444 (4443 pre-rebuttal) got rejected (as expected). Just copying a reply I wrote a couple of days ago before decisions were out: There seems to be a misalignment in the incentives of this year’s ICML reviews. The rebuttal phase is pushing hard to encourage reviewers to reconsider their scores, which has a good motivation. But in practice, it creates a distorted dynamic. ACs are seeking homogeneous ratings among reviewers. As a reviewer, I feel the pressure to increase my score to avoid prolonged back-and-forth discussions. I would assume there may be many reviewers who are not engaged but raise their scores just to end the discussion. At the same time, reviewers who are initially positive often seem reluctant to update their scores, even after their concerns are addressed. I came across a review that said: “Thank you for the rebuttal. The paper is valuable. The rebuttal addressed all my concerns.” (rephrased to avoid directly locating the paper) Yet the score remained at 4. It now makes me nervous (NOW I KNOW I WAS RIGHT!) since scores are inflated while the conference has a limited capacity. In a few days, we may see MANY uniformly positively rated papers rejected, just like last NeurIPS. I would prefer to roll back to how peer review originally was: reviewers provide honest and independent evaluations; AC assess their quality and consistency; and borderline cases are resolved through AC discussion. The current mechanism feels unnecessarily complex and makes the already bad situation worse. submitted by /u/AffectionateLife5693 [link] [comments]
- [ICML 2026] Extending the deadline for reviewer final justifications while not extending for Author-AC comments was a huge mistake [D]Just as the title says, I believe the decision to extend the deadline for reviewers to post their final justifications while not allowing authors to contact their ACs was a big misstep. I have a reviewer who, in their final justification is questioning the reliability of experimental setup and evaluation, as was as the fairness of comparison, issues that were never brought up during the initial review or their response to our rebuttal. It seems as though they were looking for reasons to justify not wanting to move their score from weak accept. It now feels like, despite having otherwise strong reviews that are leaning accept, this review might tank the paper. submitted by /u/undesirable_12 [link] [comments]
- ICML final decisions rant [D]So, ICML accepted ~6.5K of ~24K; obviously, it doesn't mean that all the rejected papers are "bad," and these rejected papers would cascade to NeurIPS, blowing up NeurIPS' total submission count, and this cycle of massive-influx-small-acceptance would repeat on an endless loop. The reviews themselves can be frustratingly inadequate: - "Only 200 benchmarks included; not included didn't-do-this-benchmark" (exaggerated for dramatic effect, sadly not unrealistic) or - "I don't think this paper, that works, is 'novel'" [out of gut feeling?] or - ACs reiterating the exact same points in the initial reviews without reading the rebuttal discussions. (Or at least, it'd seem that way) On top of all this, (from Reddit threads,) it appears that reviewers raising their score need to perform additional tasks of justifying why they're raising their scores -- which seems like a negative reinforcement signal. Also, it's crazy how people can think of an idea, run all experiments, write a coherent acceptance-ready paper, all over the weekend!!! -- isn't the whole point of research is to sit and simmer with the problem? Not sure what the future of conference publishing/reviewing is... it just feels unproductive. Anyway, just wanted to rant before looping into NeurIPS deadline, for yet another possible rejection. Isn't the whole point of publishing to understand long-standing problems? -- rejection nowadays means nothing. [Neither does acceptance?] Have a good weekend, y'all. submitted by /u/CategoryNormal149 [link] [comments]
- ECCV Stupid Reviewer Behavior (Any AC here?) [R]I am looking for guidance as I got 3 reviews 1/3, 4/3 and 4/5 but stupid reviewer 1 rejected my paper and he suggest me to conduct some more experiment and he also said that "he could change his assessment". How is it possible that he will change the rating from 1(Reject) to 4 (Borderline Accept) after rebuttal? As I am answering his all question. But I am confused that putting too much stress and working day and night is helpful or not. Any Area Chair opinion? submitted by /u/Alternative_Art2984 [link] [comments]