Workshop version vs. arXiv overlap: ICLR novelty dispute sparks peer-review debate
ruthstarkman · x · 2026-11-07
Researcher BlancheMinerva describes a catch-22: her team published paper A at a workshop, wrote related paper B on arXiv with collaborators, then submitted an updated A to ICLR — where a reviewer flagged A's "novel" claims as overlapping B, even though her team wrote B first. Ruth Starkman responds that works naturally evolve across iterations and asks whether the reviewer is "using a machine to do peer review." The exchange highlights tensions between workshop→arXiv→conference publishing norms, novelty judgments, and AI-assisted reviewing.
More from Research
- MIT and Stanford release free robotics textbook merging classical engineering with AI — GioeleZardini · 2026-11-07
- UIUC releases OpenFrontiers: open research problems corpus plus scientific rediscovery benchmark for LLM agents — Jiarui Yao · 2026-11-07
- Dinuc shuffling preserves the CA initiator dinuc, a pitfall for seq2func genomics models — anshulkundaje · 2026-11-07
- Wrong negative set confounded TF effects: ProCapNet team explains missed GATA motifs — anshulkundaje · 2026-11-07
- AI model predicts and explains cell-type-specific TSS usage driven by MEF2 motif — anshulkundaje · 2026-11-07
- Stanford trains ProCapNet on 200+ ENCODE PRO-cap datasets to map human transcription initiation — anshulkundaje · 2026-11-07