1

As a reviewer, I'm currently evaluating a research paper in the AI/Large Language Models (LLM) field. The paper itself is quite comprehensive and meets most of the standard criteria in terms of methodology, analysis, and overall presentation. However, I've noticed a significant omission: the paper does not cite OpenAI's website or any of its research papers.

Given OpenAI's pivotal role and contributions in this field, I am uncertain whether this oversight is severe enough to warrant a rejection of the paper. The rest of the paper is well-constructed, and this is the only major issue I've encountered.

In your experience, would the failure to cite such a central source in the AI/LLM domain be considered a critical flaw? I was initially inclined to recommend this paper for acceptance, but this particular issue has given me pause.

4
  • 8
    I really hope that you are receiving support in reviewing this work with someone more experienced. You state “as a reviewer”, but in the academic systems I am familiar with, an undergraduate student is not an appropriate referee for a paper. If you are reviewing alone, please consider seeking assistance from someone at your institution.
    – Ian
    Jan 17 at 2:42
  • I'm actually a sub-reviewer for this research paper. @Ian Jan 17 at 2:46
  • 4
    Would citing those papers actually be relevant for the content, or do you expect them because OpenAI is "trending"? Do they cite other papers that support the claims which an OpenAI reference would support? Jan 17 at 6:04
  • 1
    You don't cite random papers just because you feel like it - you cite the sources of information you used in your paper. You may also cite related papers for further reading even if you didn't use information from them. Do one of these apply?
    – user253751
    Jan 17 at 20:18

2 Answers 2

13

No

Since "The rest of the paper is well-constructed, and this is the only major issue I've encountered", it seems far more reasonable to recommend revision, and recommend the authors cite the missing papers. (Just make sure the missing papers are relevant. Don't ask the authors to cite the papers because they're written by OpenAI.)

1
  • Given the field it is likely that it's a conference paper and very possible that there's no possibility for revisions.
    – Maeher
    Jan 17 at 6:47
-3

As a reviewer

Your job is to provide constructive feedback so that the editor can make an informed decision about the paper. You can obviously mention that missing citation of tool is critical to you.

1
  • 3
    This is not how reviewing for CS conferences generally works.
    – Maeher
    Jan 17 at 6:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .