Why ML Peer Reviews Always Need Chasing
thegautamkamath · x · 2026-07-19
The author recalls taking reviewing very seriously during their early PhD years, noting that in theoretical computer science, one could generally expect senior researchers to provide detailed feedback.
However, in the machine learning field, reviewing often feels like "forced homework." Without constant follow-ups and reminders, many reviewers simply fail to complete their reviews on schedule.
Related event: Researchers Express Frustration Over ML Peer Review Ecosystem(2 posts)→
More from Research
- Skyfall GS Uses Flux to Refine Gaussian Splatting, Accepted at ECCV 2026 — ducha_aiki · 2026-09-11
- Could 10k agents discover learning methods beyond backprop, or just tweak existing ones? — SeunghyunSEO7 · 2026-09-11
- Apodex Launches TRACES, First Benchmark for Evaluating 'Discoverative AI' on Real-World Problems — Faheem_uh · 2026-09-11
- TRACES grades the process, not the answer: six-dimension eval for open-ended AI science — Faheem_uh · 2026-09-11
- Apodex launches TRACES, a benchmark grading AI on open-ended discovery instead of known answers — Faheem_uh · 2026-09-11
- Cognition's SWE-2 uses a KKT duality argument in RL to shift the effort Pareto curve — YouJiacheng · 2026-09-11