| 1 | Jun 10, 2010 7:18 PM | There should be a specific applications stream and review process with a different review form, that encourages reviewers to assess application papers differently. |
| 2 | Jun 10, 2010 7:30 PM | I find papers by invitation to be outrageous and against the fairness of the system. |
| 3 | Jun 10, 2010 8:09 PM | We can have some invited talks for one or two key applications where then a more indepth introduction is given |
| 4 | Jun 10, 2010 8:19 PM | I would like to comment on the next question: I think this is probably the future, but if by (bad) luck the Internet connection does not work perfectly, it will be a disaster |
| 5 | Jun 10, 2010 8:29 PM | This seems more of a suitable method for a journal with its deadline schedule, review process, and ability to publish work that has appeared in a preliminary setting (like a conference). |
| 6 | Jun 11, 2010 12:17 AM | If we wish to have a specific initiative aimed at application papers, I feel it is unfair that only a few selected people get to benefit from the initiative. Whatever incentive structure is put up should be open to everyone. |
| 7 | Jun 11, 2010 2:19 AM | However I am a bit skeptical. From what I have seen in the past, so-called "application papers" at ICML were still required to feature novel machine learning techniques, and were in some cases weak on the realistic scale. This is fine if that's what the program committee prefers, but then stop calling for "application papers". Otherwise this becomes frustrating for people who do real applications yet get rejected for lack of novel algorithmic/theoretical contribution. (I have heard this comment from several people, not just my own experience.) |
| 8 | Jun 11, 2010 4:02 AM | There shouldn't be a free pass to the proceedings. It is possible to add an applications paper reviewed track where the reviewed parameters might be more suitable to an application track. |
| 9 | Jun 11, 2010 10:36 PM | ICML has become too theoretical at the expense of interesting applications, so anything to restore more of a balance toward applications is a good thing in my opinion. |
| 10 | Jun 13, 2010 2:01 PM | no idea |
| 11 | Jun 14, 2010 9:40 AM | Explicitly call for application papers and reviews them separately from main track papers. |
| 12 | Jun 20, 2010 11:59 AM | The papers I reviewed completely missed the focus on (potential) applications. Many (or most) papers I have read from previous ICMLs, while good from a mathematical point of view, also miss the point about applicability in real situations. |