My theoretical computer-science paper that I submitted to an Australian (i.e., located in Australia this year) B-level (according to http://portal.core.edu.au/conf-ranks) DBLP-listed computer-science conference was accepted 4 weeks later, but the reviews are short:
5 sentences (accept)
2 sentences (accept)
3 sentences (reject)
3 introductory sentences + 3 sentences noting weak points + 3 sentences noting strong points (borderline)
All four reviews are superficial. They partially contradict each other. The buzzwords and phrases that occur there are: well organized, good presentation, minor format errors, sound results, no theorem proofs, highly relevant, well written, convincing, weak motivation, no empirical study, no clear justification of the contribution, only theoretical analysis, no explanation of contribution, no clear structure, results useful for practicioners and theoreticians.
There is nothing beyond these high-level claims in the reviews: no page numbers, no section numbers, no quotations, no citations, no related work, no examples/counterexamples. None of the reviews substantiates any of its claims.
It's the first time I get this kind of reviews. Usually, I get longer and deeper reviews that show that the reveiwers understood the technical contents of the submission at least a bit beyond the abstract and that elaborate on a technical level at least a little bit.
My questions are:
What is the likely cause of such short and useless reviews?
Is the conference really serious? (The paper submission site stayed open long after the formal submission deadline.)
Are my concerns groundless? Is what happened normal for B-level Australian conferences?
Is there any way to extract more information, say, by writing the PC chair(s)? If so, how do I formulate the message, or even what do I ask? Or is it better to keep silent and be satisfied with acceptance?
The proceedings will be handled by IEEE Conference Publishing Services.
I know that the exact answers might be hard to tell, so I'd be happy with answers based on well-informed guesses.