Desmond Elliott    @delliott    11/23/2021      

Anecdotal contribution on the noise in the reviewing process: the initial reviews of one of our submissions to EMNLP were 3.5, 3.5, 4.5. We thought the paper had a 50/50 chance to be rejected, and then it received the Best Long Paper Award. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  
    1         51




  Hashtags  

   #NeurIPS2021
   #ICCV2021
   #CVPR2022






 
  Related  

Maithra Raghu    @maithra_raghu    9/29/2021      

Happy to share our paper on ViTs and CNNs was accepted to #NeurIPS2021! Our other two submissions this year were rejected. I still think they have some great results and am looking forward to improving the papers with the received feedback.
  
    21         230



CVPR    @CVPR    11/20/2021      

Preliminary #CVPR2022 paper stats: Paper IDs registered: 11,083 Actual paper submissions: 8,162 The actual paper submissions are subject to change due to desk rejects. Currently, our program chairs are reviewing the papers for desk rejects.
  
    23         147



Kosta Derpanis    @CSProfKGD    12/3/2021      

Given we are at the #CVPR2022 AC onboarding stage, check out @cgmsnoek and my talk about ACing at the #ICCV2021 tutorial on "Reviewing the Review Process". Had a BLAST preparing this talk. At some point will watch it but uncomfortable watching myself. https://t.co/WRIPx0X0uZ
  
    2         18



Martin Mundt    @mundt_martin    12/2/2021      

Boosting for visibility. We can keep complaining about reviewing on various levels, debate the process & challenges. However, we should all agree that arbitrary rejects based on fixed 15% acceptance are unwarranted in an age of virtual conferences without printed proceedings.
  
          5