crouching_dragon_420 t1_iywanwb wrote
Reply to comment by Even_Stay3387 in [D] Score 4.5 GNN paper from Muhan Zhang at Peking University was amazingly accepted by NeurIPS 2022 by Even_Stay3387
the AC is usually an experienced researcher and is more senior than the reviewers, who can be PhD students that got assigned papers to review by their supervisors. I would trust the AC metareview more than the reviewers.
xgu5 t1_iywg9ma wrote
If that’s the case, why do we even bother to have multiple anonymous reviewers? Just to let the AC make the decisions based on their “more senior” experience.
maybelator t1_iyycm4g wrote
Because they have 30+ papers to manage. The reviews allow them to focus on edge cases such as this one.
With CMT, the rebuttal is partially addressed to the AC. With openreview, I agree that it looks more uncomfortable.
curiousshortguy t1_iyx399h wrote
Supervisors are responsible and accountable for their reviews though. It's s shitty excuse at best.
Nameless1995 t1_iyysho5 wrote
> who can be PhD students that got assigned papers to review by their supervisors
Or the conference. PhD students can also directly get review requests and assignment from the conference. I review stuff as a PhD student that my supervisor don't know about.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments