ECCV reviewer wants me to compare and contrast to my own paper. [D]

Our take

In response to the ECCV reviewer's request, it is essential to address the potential overlap between our current submission and the older arXiv version. While the title and method name have changed, the core results and figures remain consistent, with minor additions in the latest iteration. The reviewer’s use of specific language from our previous work, though not cited, suggests they may be referencing our earlier paper.

Bascially title.

A reviewer found the arxiv of our paper, which is an older version, before we changed the title and name of the method for this submission. The results, figures and all that are the same minus some additions for the current version, a even small reading of what they are referncing should make it clear its the same paper by the same people.

They use the very specific language of our previous writing without citing it so we cant be 100% sure they are but we are fairly certain.

We are planning to write a little note to the AC and say we cant address it in our rebuttal for double-blind so we did not refute that issue raised.

What would you do in this situation?

submitted by /u/_Pattern_Recognition
[link] [comments]

Read on the original site

Open the publisher's page for the full experience

View original article →

Tagged with

#natural language processing for spreadsheets#generative AI for data analysis#Excel alternatives for data analysis#rows.com#natural language processing#ECCV#reviewer#paper#same paper#arxiv#results#double-blind#submission#method#figures#rebuttal#citing#title#note#language