UnusualClimberBear t1_iyvpzci wrote
Because the area chair is the one making the recommendation. He managed to convince his senior area chair. Indeed you can suspect collusion, but without reading the paper, from the reviews, it looks like a typical paper with quality in the quantile 10%-60%, and at this level, acceptance is pretty random.
flashdude64 t1_iyvz72i wrote
There is so much academic dishonesty that it becomes an unreasonable to use only publications as a metric for institutions
Even_Stay3387 OP t1_iyw3rb4 wrote
You could check the rebuttal process. Reviewers and authors discussed many rounds. Reviewers said concerns are not addressed. It is really ridiculous to say reviewers are outdated.
Nameless1995 t1_iyytwtb wrote
I checked the review engagements. Reviewers 1 and 2 are willing to give borderline accept/weak accept. Even for Reviewer 1, the authors had the final say and reviewer 1 didn't respond further.
Reviewer 3 and 4 are giving weak reject/borderline reject.
Reviewer 3 was only ultimately hung up on the paper not providing a formal proof for some aspects (seemed to have implicitly accepted that other concerns are addressed). In the end the authors claim that they provide the formal proof, but reviewer 3 didn't respond further. Reviewer 4 didn't engage at all.
So I don't think it's "ridiculous" to say that the reviews are outdated. And ideally, we don't want the meta-reviewer to just average scores (otherwise there is no point for a meta-reviewer, just use a calculator, and then accept papers based on scores - would simplify the whole pipeline if we really want that).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments