Even_Stay3387 OP t1_iyw3rb4 wrote on December 4, 2022 at 5:07 PM

Reply to comment by UnusualClimberBear in [D] Score 4.5 GNN paper from Muhan Zhang at Peking University was amazingly accepted by NeurIPS 2022 by Even_Stay3387

You could check the rebuttal process. Reviewers and authors discussed many rounds. Reviewers said concerns are not addressed. It is really ridiculous to say reviewers are outdated.

Nameless1995 t1_iyytwtb wrote on December 5, 2022 at 4:47 AM

I checked the review engagements. Reviewers 1 and 2 are willing to give borderline accept/weak accept. Even for Reviewer 1, the authors had the final say and reviewer 1 didn't respond further.

Reviewer 3 and 4 are giving weak reject/borderline reject.

Reviewer 3 was only ultimately hung up on the paper not providing a formal proof for some aspects (seemed to have implicitly accepted that other concerns are addressed). In the end the authors claim that they provide the formal proof, but reviewer 3 didn't respond further. Reviewer 4 didn't engage at all.

So I don't think it's "ridiculous" to say that the reviews are outdated. And ideally, we don't want the meta-reviewer to just average scores (otherwise there is no point for a meta-reviewer, just use a calculator, and then accept papers based on scores - would simplify the whole pipeline if we really want that).