Last Words Reviewing the Reviewers
نویسنده
چکیده
I just returned from the Association for Computational Linguistics’ 43rd Annual Meeting (ACL-2005). The acceptance rate was 18%. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? When the acceptance rate is low, precision tends to be high. The audience can judge precision for itself. If the presentations are good, everyone knows it. And if they aren’t, they know that as well. ACL-2005 had great precision. Recall is more subtle. When there is an issue with recall, it isn’t immediately obvious to everyone. If you listen closely, you’ll hear some grumbling in the halls. And then the rejects start to appear elsewhere. ACL’s low recall has been great for other conferences. The best of the rejects are very good, better than most of the accepted papers, and often strong contenders for the best paper award at EMNLP. I used to be surprised by the quality of these rejects, but after seeing so many great rejects over so many years, I am no longer surprised by anything. The practice of setting EMNLP’s submission date immediately after ACL’s notification date is a not-so-subtle hint: Please do something about the low recall. When you read some of the ACL reviews for these top EMNLP papers, you realize what is happening. ACL reviewing is paying too much attention to abstentions (and objections from people outside the area). If a reviewer isn’t qualified to say anything on a particular topic, that’s okay. An abstention shouldn’t kill a paper. Controversial papers are great; boring unobjectionable incremental papers are not. The only bad paper is a paper without an advocate. A paper with a single advocate should trump a paper with lots of seconds, but no advocates. Don’t average votes. The key votes are the advocates. Negative votes matter only if they convince the advocates to change their votes. Recall is a problem for many conferences, not just ACL; SIGIR, for example, rejected the classic paper on page rank, a hugely successful paper in terms of citations, perhaps more successful than anything SIGIR ever published.
منابع مشابه
Last Words: Improving Our Reviewing Processes
Our reviewing practices today are failing.With the number of ACL submissions steadily growing over the last several years (for example, ACL 2009 had a 24% increase in submissions over ACL 2008), the need for more reviewers has become more pronounced. However, qualified reviewers are becoming hard to find, and when they are found, they are often hard-pressed for time. As a result, slipshod revie...
متن کاملارزیابی میزان دقت داوران یکی از مجلات علمی پژوهشی فارسی زبان در تشخیص اصلاحات مورد نیاز یک مقاله علمی ارسالی؛ سال 1389
Background and Objectives: Final corrections on a manuscript sent for publication in a scientific journal are suggested by reviewers. So this qualifies the paper with the least errors for publication. The present study aimed to assess the Persian language peer reviewers' comments on a manuscript sent to an Iranian Scientific Journal (journal of Rafsanjan university of medical sciences), 2010....
متن کاملReport on the Technical Track of ICSE 2015
The goal of this report is to inform the community about how we, the program chairs, organized and managed the technical track of ICSE 2015. The technical track, the most prestigious of our flagship conference, is continuously evolving in an effort to make better decisions, give better feedback to the authors, and more wisely involve the community resources. This year we adjusted the reviewing ...
متن کاملText-Based Rating Predictions on Amazon Health & Personal Care Product Review
In this assignment, we are going to predict the ratings based (mainly) on review texts and find out what kind of words have possitive and negative effect on ratings. We assume a situation that we only get the reviewers’ id, products’ id, review texts for each reviewer and product pairs and the time the reviews were written. These are very common combinations in the online reviewing system. We c...
متن کاملReviewing, Reviewers and the Scientific Enterprise
Despite their critical importance to the scientific enterprise, reviewers receive no formal training and reviewing has become a skill that they pick up through trial and error. Additionally, because most reviewers do not receive any feedback on their performance, any bad reviewing habits become entrenched over time. This has contributed to significant and unnecessary anxiety about reviewing and...
متن کاملGroup Support Systems
One of our objectives in coordinating this year's Group Support System (GSS) mini-track was to encourage a wide range of papers that touched on a variety of important issues. As in the past, we used a strong reviewing process all papers were sent to at least three, sometimes four, reviewers. Our reviewers included scholars, practitioners, and developers, social psychologists, computer scientist...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2005