Crashing out after ICLR desk rejection: "content exceeds the 9-page limit." [D]
Summary
A researcher shares their frustration after being desk rejected from ICLR because half a sentence spilled onto page 10, criticizing the process and questioning the value of the provided LLM feedback for catching formatting errors.
Similar Articles
It's time to desk reject papers that don't include code that can reproduce the results [D]
The author, after reviewing for three major conferences, argues that papers without code to reproduce results should be desk rejected, citing that only 1 of 12 papers reviewed provided full code and 7 provided none.
How's ICLR reviewing going for you? Any observations? [D]
A discussion post asking the community about their experience reviewing submissions for ICLR, focusing on the rising volume of AI-generated papers and the growing difficulty of detecting AI-written text and 'slop' submissions in OpenReview.
Concerns about the ICLR review policy [D]
The author expresses concerns about ICLR's review policy that requires individuals to serve as reviewers if they appear on 3 or more papers, regardless of their qualifications.
Weird pattern in the ICLR papers I was assigned to review [D]
An ICLR reviewer reports that all three assigned papers appear to be unfiltered Claude-generated slop sharing the same core idea of comparing predictor errors via paired differences to derive tighter bounds, raising concerns about automated paper-generation at top conferences.
What is wrong with AI writing - ICLR edition [D]
A Hacker News discussion帖吐槽 ICLR 审稿中泛滥的晦涩 AI 写作，并附上一段匿名论文的典型模糊表述，呼吁社区讨论如何在不简单指责“AI 写作”的前提下批评这类糟糕行文的实质问题。