« Back to Summary
Do you think the ICML2010 reviews were different in quality from the reviews at previous ICMLs?
#Response DateAdditional comments:
1Jun 10, 2010 8:26 PMI haven't submitted to ICML before
2Jun 10, 2010 8:39 PMMy first ICML submission.
3Jun 11, 2010 1:20 AMmy first submission to ICML
4Jun 11, 2010 1:31 AMAt ICML2009, the Phase II reviewer is better than the Phase I reviewer.
5Jun 11, 2010 2:30 AMThe main issue seems to be the lack of reviewers with expertise.
6Jun 11, 2010 8:09 AMIt was not possible to rebut comments from Phase II reviewers. In my case, there were three additional reviews in Phase II, some of which made significant factual errors that could not be addressed.
7Jun 11, 2010 8:37 AMAbout double blind: At some point, somebody has to keep track of people submitting the same thing several times. My 1st round reviews were simply awful (for my single author paper), I was seriously shocked. I wrote a harsh reply, and was then positively surprised about the good handling of the area chair (good 2nd round review; of course, the 1st round reviewers didn't give a damn: the main function of the reply is to get the area chair thinking!). I as reviewer was very thorough, which got me branded as somebody with "vested interests". I'll not do it next year for ICML. IMHO: With such poor reviewers today, it is just more work for area chairs. Hire more of them, keep track of who's doing good area chair work, pass it between conferences. There is no simple way around this, look at other serious disciplines, they do the same. And make sure that both authors and reviewers understand that area chairs know who they are.
8Jun 11, 2010 1:28 PMThe reviews for my paper were in general pretty brief (but helpful), presumably due to the short (2-week) reviewing period.
9Jun 11, 2010 1:36 PMToo often, papers are reviewed by people w/o substantial credentials in a given area to make authoritative judgments. I think this is a major problem.
10Jun 11, 2010 2:03 PMI feel our rejected paper was rejected because of a single poor reviewer who obviously hadn't put in the time to understanding the method. The area chair should have caught this.
11Jun 11, 2010 8:38 PMDon't know - first time submitting to ICML
12Jun 14, 2010 9:14 PMNo experience of previous ICMLs
13Jun 17, 2010 7:07 PMquality assurance have to be improved, i.e., reviewer should recheck proofs and related work. to ensure this, reviewers could be divided into two groups specialized these issues (e.g. phd students and professors, respectively). furthermore, reviewers are mentioned in the proceedings related to reviewed papers (only accepted).