ICLR reviewers flag self-overlap: reframing work as independent verification, not novelty
BlancheMinerva · x · 2026-11-07
BlancheMinerva and DanielCHTan97 debate an ICLR submission snafu: paper A was published at a workshop, collab paper B went on arXiv, and reviewers then called out A's 'novelty' claims as overlapping B — content that originated from Minerva's own team. Tan suggests reframing A as an independent verification in a different setting; Minerva counters that nobody on paper B thinks it was their idea, calling it a quirk of double-blind review rather than a real priority dispute.
More from Research
- Sophont CEO Tanishq Abraham on Holon-S1 cancer research model and healthcare world model — iScienceLuvr · 2026-11-07
- Anthropic study: AI could absorb 27-52% of researchers' time, median 38% across fields — emollick · 2026-11-07
- Nearly 30% of ICLR 2027 reviews mention "appendix", fueling AI-written review fears — nsaphra · 2026-11-07
- LLMs Edit Robot Policy Weights Directly: 2,048 Parameter Tweak Lifts Success from 68% to 88% — zhaoran_wang · 2026-11-07
- GTEx MCP Server gives AI assistants 25 tools to query genomics across 54 tissue types — modelcontextprotocol · 2026-11-07
- Stanford's Anshul Kundaje: ML conference peer review is broken and unfixable — anshulkundaje · 2026-11-07