•1 min read•from Machine Learning
ECCV Stupid Reviewer Behavior (Any AC here?) [R]
Our take
Navigating the peer review process can be challenging, especially when faced with mixed feedback like 1/3, 4/3, and 4/5 ratings. It’s understandable to feel frustrated by a reviewer who initially rejects your paper but suggests that further experiments could influence their decision. This situation raises questions about the reviewer's criteria and the potential for change after a rebuttal. Engaging with the reviewer’s concerns thoughtfully is essential, but it’s equally important to assess whether the extensive effort aligns with your goals.
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?
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Tagged with
#rows.com#natural language processing for spreadsheets#generative AI for data analysis#Excel alternatives for data analysis#ECCV#paper rejection#reviewer behavior#Area Chair#rebuttal#Borderline Accept#academic review#review score#review process#experiment#guidance#feedback#peer review#assessment#review quality#stress