Why doesn't the ML research community limit the number of submissions per author? [D]
Summary
A researcher questions why the ML community doesn't limit submissions per author to manage review quality, citing successful practices in other fields like Security and Computer Architecture.
Similar Articles
Position: Want Better ML Reviews? Stop Asking Nicely and Start Incentivizing with a Credit System
This position paper argues that improving machine learning peer review requires enforceable procedural safeguards and a spendable credit system, such as OpenReview Points, to incentivize good reviewing and limit submission volume.
Are we optimizing AI research for acceptance rather than lasting value? [D]
A researcher critiques how AI conference acceptance culture prioritizes satisfying reviewers over producing work with lasting value, noting the expectation of extensive evaluations that are rarely verified by others.
ACL Sustainable Reviewing Policy [D]
ACL has announced changes to its reviewing policy, requiring submissions to include a qualified reviewer or face a lottery, with caps on total and first-author submissions per cycle.
AAAI 2027 Review: No code submission? [D]
A reviewer for AAAI 2027 expresses surprise at the low number of paper submissions with code, despite the conference's emphasis on reproducibility, and asks for opinions on whether lack of code should affect review scores.
Where to submit stat/prob ML [D]
A researcher in statistical and probabilistic ML discusses the overwhelming presence of LLM-based works in top conferences like ICLR and NeurIPS, and explores alternative venues such as AISTATS and UAI for publishing such research.