Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The culture of rejection in computer science publications

sigbed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: The culture of rejection in computer science publications

#81

Post by hannob »

Honestly this only touches a small fraction of how absurd the whole publishing system with conferences is.

I mean just thing about some obvious issues: Large parts of computer science limit how much science they can publish (and thus effectively share with others) by the number of conferences people want to organize. There's also a very obvious discrimination issue, as most "high tier" conferences are either in the US or (to a lesser extent) in the EU. And it's pretty crazy that people do transatlantic flights to go to a conference in order to publish a paper, even if they don't really want to go to the conference.

Re: The culture of rejection in computer science publications

#82

Post by chasil »

krinchan wrote: post #39

The academic system is completely broken for Computer Science, and I don't really see a way to fix it. The economic realities of the field just make it too risky to allow an exceptionally gifted individual to remain out in the open publishing research that could potentially destroy your business model. Justifying these low acceptance rates as somehow prestigious is really just creating even more perverse incentives t…

I have never pursued this type of publication, but why on earth does an "acceptance rate" even exist for these (journal or conference) publications?

Why not publish them all? Endorse those that are selected, add commentary to those with which there is disagreement, but is a batch inclusion of them all so technically difficult?

Re: The culture of rejection in computer science publications

#83

Post by adamsmith143 »

The lack of Novelty point feels off the mark, at least in some fields. At least in ML its extremely common for a paper to just report a new benchmark on some well known dataset with virtually no new real contributions other than more time spent hyperparemeter turning

Re: The culture of rejection in computer science publications

#84

Post by warkdarrior »

snickerbockers wrote: post #44

>Serving on a PC is a yeoman’s service, and the community owes them a debt of gratitude. However, I believe that a toxic culture has emerged. This blog is a call for PCs to change their priorities. does that acronym not stand for what i think it does?

PC stands for Program Committee, the selected group of people in charge of accepting and rejecting paper submissions.

Re: The culture of rejection in computer science publications

#85

Post by grayclhn »

logisticseh wrote: post #41
krinchan wrote: post #39

The academic system is completely broken for Computer Science, and I don't really see a way to fix it. The economic realities of the field just make it too risky to allow an exceptionally gifted individual to remain out in the open publishing research that could potentially destroy your business model. Justifying these low acceptance rates as somehow prestigious is really just creating even more perverse incentives t…

> The "cream" rising to the top is often less genius and more politically savvy with the right connections on the PC. I'm generally nauseated when I interact with American CS academics. Every time I attend a conference, PC, or NSF panel, I am so glad I chose industry. It's like IRL twitter. (Europe seems to be better for some reason.) > If you're smart enough to rise, you'll get an offer from the private sector you s…

IDK, I think tenure contributes a lot to 1. I understand and agree with a lot of the rationale (academic freedom, etc.) but when you select for people that prioritize, “if I work really hard for 6 years and get lucky, I can never be fired,” you get a lot of dysfunctional individuals and encourage some of their worst impulses.

Re: The culture of rejection in computer science publications

#86

Post by FabHK »

One side effect I didn't see mentioned in the article:

One professor of mine spoke of the LPU, the least publishable unit. So, if you're lucky enough to have some novel ideas, and build something nice out of it, don't put it all into one coherent and easily digested journal paper! The number of publications counts.

Instead, chop it into little pieces that are just "novel" or noteworthy enough (LPUs), and publish them separately. Publication list inflation accomplished; and scientific progress/intelligibility/successful communication be damned.

Re: The culture of rejection in computer science publications

#87

Post by ackbar03 »

logisticseh wrote: post #67
moab wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should faculty be paid more? Absolutely. Should Ph.D. students be paid more? Absolutely!! But the blanket statement you make in (1) is wrong and strikes me as awfully close to the extreme left-wing and right-wing mindsets of "the system is fucked up beyond repair, all that remains to be done is to tear it down". The reality is more nuanced than this, and the picture you paint of industry is hardly that rosy, even at…

I've spent a lot of time with working for or closely interfacing with a half dozen academic institutions. I left academia by choice -- with multiple TT offers in hand -- so this isn't sour grapes. I am highly confident in my assessment that the personalities found on the typical R1 tenure track are exactly the sort of personalities I avoid hiring or working with at all costs. There are exceptions, but they prove the…

> I am highly confident in my assessment that the personalities found on the typical R1 tenure track are exactly the sort of personalities I avoid hiring or working with at all costs.

And what is that exactly out of curiosity?

Re: The culture of rejection in computer science publications

#88

Post by deanCommie »

qzx_pierri wrote: post #19

It doesn't matter what color you are. It doesn't matter where you're from. If you create something like what Dijkstra created back in 56' (undeniable innovation), then no door will remain shut. That's the beauty of Math, CompSci, or STEM as a whole. Not to be too blunt, but I'd rather we keep this soft, "everyone should be accepted" nonsense out of CompSci. The cream will rise to the top. Anyone complaining just need…

Your comment may have been narrowly focused on academia, but I see the same perspectives being shared about Diversity and Inclusion in our whole industry. But it's a problem.

Literally the exact same phrasing has been used to resist removing Jim Crow laws and civil rights legislation. There was always someone could point to a black man in America that was doing just fine without any new laws.

Let's start with where you're right: You're absolutely right that if you're in the top 0.1%, hell even the top 1% of any field, you will do fine. No door will remain shut. Your comparison point is one of the most esteemed humans in the history of Computing Science. A person who was awarded one of the first 6 Turing Awards (The equivalent of the Nobel Prize in our field).

At that level of intellect, you could make the claim there is no discrimination. And you'd be wrong (Let's just talk about what happened to Alan Turing HIMSELF, and the discrimination he faced, in spite of the ideas that were so revolutionary they named the award after him). But let's pretend that you're right.

What about the rest of the field? What about the p90 of the industry - folks who want to succeed, who want to thrive, but encounter hidden and non-hidden biases. Spend 10 minutes with any woman in STEM and you'll be filled with stories of subtle and non-subtle discrimination they encounter. Is it necessary? I think not.

Re: The culture of rejection in computer science publications

#89

Post by BeetleB »

blagie wrote: post #62
ath0 wrote: post #32

I'm long past my academia phase, but recently led the PC for an industry conference (accept rate: ~15%). 1. Curation is important both for the physical limits (venues only fit a certain number of people), attention limits (attendees will usually retain only a handful of "nuggets" no matter how packed the agenda is) and interaction limits (you can't meet everyone at a large conference). 2. If the goal of a conference…

I'm well-known in a research community. I'm positioned such that I don't need more academic points. I've mostly stopped publishing in branded prestige academic venues, in part due to rejection rates. My goal in doing work and writing papers is to see them disseminated. The acceptance/rejection process is asinine -- studies show it's basically random. I've had one paper in my whole career where the reviewers did a pro…

> Comments often show the reviewers never read the paper.

This. I was not in computer science, but in a different technical field, and this is sadly common. We would often have to appeal to the editor with "The topic the reviewer said we didn't address? It's in Section X. Get us another reviewer."

Re: The culture of rejection in computer science publications

#90

Post by grayclhn »

FabHK wrote: post #86

One side effect I didn't see mentioned in the article: One professor of mine spoke of the LPU, the least publishable unit. So, if you're lucky enough to have some novel ideas, and build something nice out of it, don't put it all into one coherent and easily digested journal paper! The number of publications counts. Instead, chop it into little pieces that are just "novel" or noteworthy enough (LPUs), and publish them…

Honestly, I think this is often said cynically but is a good practice overall. Would you rather have to read and understand one giant commit reflecting 2 years of work, or 10 well-documented and logically complete individual commits?
Post reply on HN