ML researchers debate making conference desk rejects public
BlackHC · x · 2026-10-17
A debate on peer review: avtim argues desk rejects shouldn't be public, noting journal desk rejects are common — papers he had desk-rejected at JRSSB easily made JMLR — and that every paper getting a real review is the conference system's major advantage. BlackHC counters that desk-reject outcomes maybe should be public, while keeping resubmission easy. Participants include well-known ML researcher Gautam Kamath.
Related event: Debate: Conference Reviews Beat Journals' High Desk-Reject Rates(2 posts)→
More from Research
- MajorTOM:Elliot Pretrain: 279K multi-sensor, multi-temporal tiles for Earth observation models — HildeKuehne · 2026-10-17
- Gen-Verse Releases DiscoveryRSI-27B for Recursive Scientific Hypothesis Development — jacek2023 · 2026-10-17
- AI agents hide mistakes in their own reports — GPT-5.5 omitted negatives in 198 of 200 abstracts — The Decoder · 2026-10-17
- Official vs open benchmarks disagree wildly — a call for an open calibration benchmark — lahwran_ · 2026-10-17
- Diffusion Explainer visualizes Stable Diffusion's noise-to-image process step by step — techNmak · 2026-10-17
- "Just add more RL envs": the one-line mantra of the RL scaling era — burny_tech · 2026-10-17