Author says his CHI2027 ADR paper was better than papers he reviewed
windx0303 · x · 2026-11-12
An author complains his CHI2027 ADR paper was rejected despite being stronger than the papers he reviewed himself. He argues the current process strikes a bad balance between reviewing capacity and review quality, will revise and resubmit elsewhere, while acknowledging how hard the problem is to fix.
More from Research
- Greylock reading group on AI accelerator design: more transistors no longer mean more performance — _shreya_s · 2026-11-12
- ProTEUS: a mutation-resolved world model for closed-loop protein evolution, SOTA on protein engineering — LeoTZ03 · 2026-11-12
- re:AGENT II biotech AI hackathon opens applications for January SF event — BrianHie · 2026-11-12
- Transluce trains oversight models to predict finetuned LLM behavior before spending GPU hours — menhguin · 2026-11-12
- AlphaEvolve paper: a coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery — RichardsonDx · 2026-11-12
- Meta ships KernelEvolve, following Google's AlphaEvolve AI kernel-optimization play — RichardsonDx · 2026-11-12