| 1 | Jun 10, 2010 7:06 PM | this year's ecml/pkdd |
| 2 | Jun 10, 2010 7:10 PM | NIPS |
| 3 | Jun 10, 2010 7:15 PM | Reviews everywhere have a lot of variance. Hard to compare to an 'average'. |
| 4 | Jun 10, 2010 7:21 PM | aaai |
| 5 | Jun 10, 2010 7:26 PM | SIGIR |
| 6 | Jun 10, 2010 8:23 PM | NIPS |
| 7 | Jun 10, 2010 8:24 PM | ICDM |
| 8 | Jun 10, 2010 8:25 PM | my comparison is with graphics conferences, e.g., eurographics, siggraph |
| 9 | Jun 10, 2010 8:34 PM | AISTATS-2010. |
| 10 | Jun 10, 2010 9:03 PM | NIPS, 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). |
| 11 | Jun 10, 2010 9:05 PM | ecml pkdd 2010 |
| 12 | Jun 10, 2010 9:06 PM | ECML, GECCO, AAMAS, AAAI
Reinforcement learning |
| 13 | Jun 10, 2010 9:26 PM | AAAI, IJCAI |
| 14 | Jun 10, 2010 9:56 PM | UAI 2010. Subject Area: Gaussian Processes |
| 15 | Jun 10, 2010 10:48 PM | NIPS, Siggraph. |
| 16 | Jun 10, 2010 10:51 PM | I 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. |
| 17 | Jun 10, 2010 11:59 PM | E.g., COLT 2010, reinforcement learning |
| 18 | Jun 11, 2010 3:03 AM | AAAI and SDM machine learning papers |
| 19 | Jun 11, 2010 6:21 AM | CVPR, ICCV, NIPS -- vision & graphical models. |
| 20 | Jun 11, 2010 8:09 AM | CVPR, ICCV, NIPS. Computer Vision and Machine Learning |
| 21 | Jun 11, 2010 8:20 AM | first submission in this type of conference... |
| 22 | Jun 11, 2010 8:42 AM | ECML - Machine learning |
| 23 | Jun 11, 2010 11:32 AM | ACM KDD, ECML PKDD |
| 24 | Jun 11, 2010 1:03 PM | Again, due to variance I don't dare to generalize... |
| 25 | Jun 11, 2010 1:19 PM | Same remark. |
| 26 | Jun 11, 2010 1:39 PM | nips |
| 27 | Jun 11, 2010 1:47 PM | holds for review 1 in the first phase and review 3 in the second phase. the other review in phase 1 was poor. |
| 28 | Jun 11, 2010 1:51 PM | ICML reviews are much better than SIGIR. |
| 29 | Jun 11, 2010 1:57 PM | NIPS, KDD ... machine learning, data mining |
| 30 | Jun 11, 2010 1:58 PM | NIPS |
| 31 | Jun 11, 2010 2:03 PM | AAAI, CogSci |
| 32 | Jun 11, 2010 2:31 PM | I guess we were simply unlucky this year. |
| 33 | Jun 11, 2010 2:51 PM | Nips |
| 34 | Jun 11, 2010 2:58 PM | nips |
| 35 | Jun 11, 2010 3:38 PM | My (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. |
| 36 | Jun 11, 2010 4:38 PM | NIPS, MACHINE LEARNING |
| 37 | Jun 11, 2010 4:56 PM | I'm comparing against NIPS, ECML and AAAI in the area of reinforcement learning |
| 38 | Jun 11, 2010 6:15 PM | nips (about the same), ecml (better), iconip (better) |
| 39 | Jun 11, 2010 8:44 PM | Theory, STOC/SODA etc. |
| 40 | Jun 12, 2010 12:27 AM | AAAI, NIPS |
| 41 | Jun 12, 2010 3:57 AM | NIPS, CVPR, AISTATS |
| 42 | Jun 12, 2010 10:57 AM | NIPS: machine learning,
CVPR/ICCV/ECCV: computer vision |
| 43 | Jun 12, 2010 11:14 AM | NIPS, AiSTAT |
| 44 | Jun 12, 2010 1:41 PM | SDM, KDD, ECML |
| 45 | Jun 12, 2010 2:39 PM | NIPS |
| 46 | Jun 12, 2010 11:27 PM | The second-phase reviews have been consistently poor, and this is frustrating because there is no associated response period. Otherwise "about the same". |
| 47 | Jun 13, 2010 1:15 AM | Can't say. This is my first Machine Learning submission. |
| 48 | Jun 13, 2010 5:27 PM | KDD, ICDM, classification, online learning |
| 49 | Jun 14, 2010 4:34 AM | AISTATS, NIPS; kernel methods sparse methods, supervised learning. |
| 50 | Jun 14, 2010 3:47 PM | i hoped the icml reviews were substantially better, unfortunately they were not |
| 51 | Jun 15, 2010 9:25 AM | NIPS |
| 52 | Jun 15, 2010 2:23 PM | In my personal experience, ICDM has typically offered more helpful feedback and more reasoned reviews than ICML. |
| 53 | Jun 19, 2010 5:18 AM | NIPS,IJCNN. The subject area is the neural networks. |
| 54 | Jun 25, 2010 6:44 AM | NIPS, KDD, SDM, ICDM |
| 55 | Jun 25, 2010 8:30 AM | Depends on the conference, in some of them they are about the same level, and in some others they are worse |