Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

toftinosantolama t1_j5rtquc wrote

Reply to comment by entarko in [D] CVPR Reviews are out by banmeyoucoward

They won't know about the accept afaik.

0

entarko t1_j5rujuz wrote

There is an official discussion period between reviewers and AC starting on the 31st of January. It would be weird not to know other reviewers ratings. It would be unprecedented, as it was the case for, at least, the last three years.

2

toftinosantolama t1_j5ruw81 wrote

I might be wrong of course, that's my impression from a discussion earlier today. BTW I think it'd be more fair not to know.

1

entarko t1_j5rvhgc wrote

Since there is a discussion period, not having access to the initial reviews would only be a waste of time. As a reviewer, you would re-write arguments from your review, which could have simply been read from the initial review.

2

toftinosantolama t1_j5rvxa3 wrote

Well the rating could be hidden... Not that this is the problem, the problem is that the reviews are really entitled and not willing to stand corrected. I've these so many times. And I'd bet this kind of reveiwrs are phd students, not very clever ones.

0

entarko t1_j5rx5mc wrote

The "entitlement" of reviewers is, quite often (I would say 50/50), a result of the authors' response. I have reviewed several papers where authors responded to fair comments by dismissing the reviewers and trying to make him feel dumb. That invariably ends up in reviewers not changing / lowering their rating.

Also, PhD students can be good reviewers.

2

toftinosantolama t1_j5rxq32 wrote

I don't doubt your experience. Mine is totally different. I've never flipped one reviewer even thought I've always been polite and the reviewer clearly and objectively wrong. They just don't care. They have too much power. The AC just goes with the flow. This is not peer review, it's a joke.

This is not the case in ML conferences, according to my experience, it's a CV thing...

1