1 min readfrom Machine Learning

[D] TMLR reviews seem more reliable than ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR

This year I submitted a paper to ICML for the first time. I have also experienced the review process at TMLR and ICLR. From my observation, given these venues take up close to (or less than) 4 months until the final decision, I think the quality of reviews at TMLR was so much on point when compared with that at ICML right now. Many ICML reviews I am seeing (be it my own paper or the papers received for reviewing), feel rushed, low confidence or sometimes overly hostile without providing constructive feedback. All this makes me realise the quality that TMLR reviews offered. The reviewers there are more aware of the topic, ask reasonable questions and show concerns where it's apt. ​It’s making me wonder if the big conferences (ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR) are even worth it?

submitted by /u/MT1699
[link] [comments]

Want to read more?

Check out the full article on the original site

View original article

Tagged with

#natural language processing for spreadsheets
#generative AI for data analysis
#Excel alternatives for data analysis
#rows.com
#big data management in spreadsheets
#real-time data collaboration
#financial modeling with spreadsheets
#real-time collaboration
#big data performance
[D] TMLR reviews seem more reliable than ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR