Submitted by ElPelana t3_11dh7pp in MachineLearning
How did it go???
Submitted by ElPelana t3_11dh7pp in MachineLearning
How did it go???
Got my paper accepted!! Original scores: 1 weak accept, 1 borderline and 1 weak reject. After rebuttal, got 3 weak accepts.
Had same original scores, but after rebuttal it became three rejects lol
nice rebuttal!
I once reviewed a cvpr submission that had overwhelmingly positive scores before rebuttal, and overwhelmingly negative after. Sometimes it's best to not do rebuttal at all lol
First 3 3 2 (B B WR) -> after rebuttal 4 4 3 (WA WA B)
Finally my paper got ACCEPTED!
Wow that's a nice rebuttal!!
You too! Thanks! I cannot still believe today result!
Now I just need to hope that my Canadian visa doesn't actually take 209 days to process...
Honestly needing a visa to attend conferences is a big disadvantage - networking at conferences leads to future employment and research opportunities, and can have a huge impact on the career of early-stage researchers.
I still cannot believe that getting a Canadian visa is harder than the US visa
It's a shame, even I can't attend. Why do they even have conferences in Canada. It's like Canada don't like ze money from conferences.
Had 2 Borderlines and 1 Weak accept. After rebuttal, one of the borderline reviewers failed to updates that review, while the other two doubled down on their respective stances. Luckily, the decision was an Accept
[deleted]
Are the reviews public? If so, where can I see them? (I didn’t submit anything just curious to look through some reviews)
No
I went from 443 to 422. The reviewers mentioned new concerns that they didn’t previously express and focused on one writing nit that could be fixed in one sentence or less. Is it worth emailing the AC? I feel the reviewers were biased or tried to drag down the scores for no good reason
Nope, the decision is usually made by 2 ACs and 1 senior AC. Take the L and try your luck in the next slot machine.
What a joke! I have a reviewer clearly champions for rejection and the two other reviews are completely yes-men. The rejecting reviewer did acknowledge some of my rebuttals, but then make some more non-sense excuses just to drag my paper down. The other reviewers just agree with anything he/she said without any clear stance. Seriously, I think there should be rules and restrictions for reviewers to say anything they conveniently want as "marginal"/"incremental"/...
maybe giving 1-2 reviews to do instead of 7 would help.
[removed]
canbooo t1_ja9a5et wrote
I voted did not change because I wanted to see the results without biasing them too much. Do what you want with this info.