TMLR Reviews Seem More Reliable Than ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR
The author shares their experience with the review process at different AI/ML conferences, finding TMLR reviews to be more constructive and reliable compared to the rushed and sometimes hostile reviews at larger conferences like ICML.
Why it matters
This highlights the importance of high-quality peer review in the AI/ML research community and the need to critically evaluate the review processes of top conferences.
Key Points
- 1TMLR review process is faster (4 months or less) compared to ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR
- 2TMLR reviewers are more knowledgeable about the topics and provide better feedback
- 3ICML reviews often feel rushed, lacking confidence, or overly hostile without constructive criticism
- 4The author is questioning the value of submitting to the big AI/ML conferences
Details
The author has experienced the review process at TMLR, ICLR, and ICML. They found that TMLR reviews were of higher quality, with reviewers who were more aware of the topic, asked reasonable questions, and provided appropriate concerns. In contrast, many ICML reviews the author has seen, both for their own paper and for papers they reviewed, felt rushed, lacked confidence, or were overly hostile without offering constructive feedback. This has made the author wonder if the big AI/ML conferences like ICML, NeurIPS, and ICLR are even worth submitting to, given the apparent issues with their review process compared to the more reliable TMLR reviews.
No comments yet
Be the first to comment