« Back to Summary
Do you think the ICML2010 reviews were different in quality from those at related conferences?
#Response DateWhat conference are you comparing to and what is the subject area?
1Jun 10, 2010 7:06 PMthis year's ecml/pkdd
2Jun 10, 2010 7:10 PMNIPS
3Jun 10, 2010 7:15 PMReviews everywhere have a lot of variance. Hard to compare to an 'average'.
4Jun 10, 2010 7:21 PMaaai
5Jun 10, 2010 7:26 PMSIGIR
6Jun 10, 2010 8:23 PMNIPS
7Jun 10, 2010 8:24 PMICDM
8Jun 10, 2010 8:25 PMmy comparison is with graphics conferences, e.g., eurographics, siggraph
9Jun 10, 2010 8:34 PMAISTATS-2010.
10Jun 10, 2010 9:03 PMNIPS, AISTATS. I had one outstanding ICML reviewer (negative review), one good one (positive review) and one really poor one (negative and nonsensical). I submitted a paper that was between areas (Bayesian nonparametrics and stochastic optimization) and had difficulty getting capable reviewers. There needs to be a way to get papers like this split between area chairs and possibly have a feedback/rating system for reviewers (those with low marks would not get asked to review again in a certain area).
11Jun 10, 2010 9:05 PMecml pkdd 2010
12Jun 10, 2010 9:06 PMECML, GECCO, AAMAS, AAAI Reinforcement learning
13Jun 10, 2010 9:26 PMAAAI, IJCAI
14Jun 10, 2010 9:56 PMUAI 2010. Subject Area: Gaussian Processes
15Jun 10, 2010 10:48 PMNIPS, Siggraph.
16Jun 10, 2010 10:51 PMI find NIPS marginally worse as far as craziness. COLT reviewers seem to be stronger, but their viewpoint often doesn't make sense w.r.t. what is significant work.
17Jun 10, 2010 11:59 PME.g., COLT 2010, reinforcement learning
18Jun 11, 2010 3:03 AMAAAI and SDM machine learning papers
19Jun 11, 2010 6:21 AMCVPR, ICCV, NIPS -- vision & graphical models.
20Jun 11, 2010 8:09 AMCVPR, ICCV, NIPS. Computer Vision and Machine Learning
21Jun 11, 2010 8:20 AMfirst submission in this type of conference...
22Jun 11, 2010 8:42 AMECML - Machine learning
23Jun 11, 2010 11:32 AMACM KDD, ECML PKDD
24Jun 11, 2010 1:03 PMAgain, due to variance I don't dare to generalize...
25Jun 11, 2010 1:19 PMSame remark.
26Jun 11, 2010 1:39 PMnips
27Jun 11, 2010 1:47 PMholds for review 1 in the first phase and review 3 in the second phase. the other review in phase 1 was poor.
28Jun 11, 2010 1:51 PMICML reviews are much better than SIGIR.
29Jun 11, 2010 1:57 PMNIPS, KDD ... machine learning, data mining
30Jun 11, 2010 1:58 PMNIPS
31Jun 11, 2010 2:03 PMAAAI, CogSci
32Jun 11, 2010 2:31 PMI guess we were simply unlucky this year.
33Jun 11, 2010 2:51 PMNips
34Jun 11, 2010 2:58 PMnips
35Jun 11, 2010 3:38 PMMy (rejected) paper was about manifold learning which fits ICML well. My home conference is CVPR. I think that papers that fit the core areas of CVPR usually receive more nuanced reviews.
36Jun 11, 2010 4:38 PMNIPS, MACHINE LEARNING
37Jun 11, 2010 4:56 PMI'm comparing against NIPS, ECML and AAAI in the area of reinforcement learning
38Jun 11, 2010 6:15 PMnips (about the same), ecml (better), iconip (better)
39Jun 11, 2010 8:44 PMTheory, STOC/SODA etc.
40Jun 12, 2010 12:27 AMAAAI, NIPS
41Jun 12, 2010 3:57 AMNIPS, CVPR, AISTATS
42Jun 12, 2010 10:57 AMNIPS: machine learning, CVPR/ICCV/ECCV: computer vision
43Jun 12, 2010 11:14 AMNIPS, AiSTAT
44Jun 12, 2010 1:41 PMSDM, KDD, ECML
45Jun 12, 2010 2:39 PMNIPS
46Jun 12, 2010 11:27 PMThe second-phase reviews have been consistently poor, and this is frustrating because there is no associated response period. Otherwise "about the same".
47Jun 13, 2010 1:15 AMCan't say. This is my first Machine Learning submission.
48Jun 13, 2010 5:27 PMKDD, ICDM, classification, online learning
49Jun 14, 2010 4:34 AMAISTATS, NIPS; kernel methods sparse methods, supervised learning.
50Jun 14, 2010 3:47 PMi hoped the icml reviews were substantially better, unfortunately they were not
51Jun 15, 2010 9:25 AMNIPS
52Jun 15, 2010 2:23 PMIn my personal experience, ICDM has typically offered more helpful feedback and more reasoned reviews than ICML.
53Jun 19, 2010 5:18 AMNIPS,IJCNN. The subject area is the neural networks.
54Jun 25, 2010 6:44 AMNIPS, KDD, SDM, ICDM
55Jun 25, 2010 8:30 AMDepends on the conference, in some of them they are about the same level, and in some others they are worse