Skip to main content
36 votes

Handling cases of "potential" ChatGPT-generated reviews in non-anonymous program committees (as a PC member)

I can contact the PC chairs. However, I cannot provide any proof, aside from mentioning the elements that make me believe that the review was generated with ChatGPT. Of course, lack of proof would ...
Bryan Krause's user avatar
  • 120k
23 votes

My supervisor is promoting my work (that I think has flaws) everywhere - what to do?

If you clearly state your question, you're more likely to get better answers. Everyone makes mistakes. So, there's no need to worry excessively beforehand. If you feel the errors significantly impact ...
optimal control's user avatar
19 votes

Handling cases of "potential" ChatGPT-generated reviews in non-anonymous program committees (as a PC member)

At the very least, you should report this to the chair because the authors most likely did not agree to have their abstract harvested by an LLM, and probably don't want it to be.
Azor Ahai -him-'s user avatar
19 votes

My supervisor is promoting my work (that I think has flaws) everywhere - what to do?

TLDR: What to do? Thank your professor for promoting your work and seek help dealing with insecurity. Longer answer: ALL work has flaws. That is, just about every paper ever written has something ...
Peter Flom's user avatar
  • 4,524
18 votes
Accepted

Reviewers do not live up to own quality standards

This is not uncommon, but the root cause isn't that reviewers have high standards. As you've noted and I can confirm from my observations, these researchers often don't adhere to such high standards ...
Mitsuko's user avatar
  • 4,314
14 votes

My supervisor is promoting my work (that I think has flaws) everywhere - what to do?

You should call it 'limitation', not a flaw/mistake. They are two different things. Newton's law is 'flawed' but high school students are still learning it. Every study is 'flawed' in some sense if ...
Mahali Sindy's user avatar
  • 2,104
14 votes

Reviewers do not live up to own quality standards

Looking at this from the point of view of an editor who handles a paper, the major important issue here is the quality of the resulting paper. If reviewers' comments make sense, it is irrelevant what ...
Christian Hennig's user avatar
14 votes

How much is simplicity of ideas/approaches in a paper appreciated by journals and reviewers?

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" (often attributed to A. Einstein). What you suggest is obfuscating, as you say. I doubt that reviewers would reward you for ...
Buffy's user avatar
  • 371k
13 votes
Accepted

Review not needed after review

There are a lot of possibilities, among them that the editor made a decision with or without reviews. Another is that the author(s) withdrew the paper making reviews moot. The timing might just be a ...
Buffy's user avatar
  • 371k
12 votes

Handling cases of "potential" ChatGPT-generated reviews in non-anonymous program committees (as a PC member)

Is only the style reminiscent of ChatGPT or is the content of the review also poor? These are different questions. For instance, a reviewer not very proficient in English could have used an LLM to ...
Polytropos's user avatar
  • 1,024
10 votes

Reviewers do not live up to own quality standards

In addition to the other answers already provided, I think this also has to do with the role those people (or any of us, really) are in. As an author you have a different responsibility (i.e. ...
BioBrains's user avatar
  • 4,253
8 votes
Accepted

When is it appropriate to suggest a nonpreferred reviewer?

What is the main purpose of suggesting a nonpreferred reviewer? If you believe there are reasons that certain reviewers may unfairly recommend to reject your work, you could name them as "...
Christian Hennig's user avatar
8 votes
Accepted

How much is simplicity of ideas/approaches in a paper appreciated by journals and reviewers?

Reviewers are not a uniform group of people. Those who can apply your new idea in their own work certainly appreciate explaining it in a way that is as simple and as direct as possible. They are more ...
DCTLib's user avatar
  • 15.5k
8 votes

How much is simplicity of ideas/approaches in a paper appreciated by journals and reviewers?

Results count. If your main contribution are the results are better than the state of the art, that's what you focus upon. The fact that your method is simple is merely a side aspect. If - say - ...
Captain Emacs's user avatar
6 votes
Accepted

Is it possible that the editor is still looking for other reveiwers while one reviewer has submitted the reviewer report?

Yes There's no reason why it's impossible. For example, the first reviewer could simply have been very fast, possibly because they just happened to be free when the invitation arrived. Alternatively, ...
Allure's user avatar
  • 132k
5 votes

Review not needed after review

The simplest possibility would be that your submitted review got lost in the system, or the editor overlooked or forgot about it. This happens sometimes and is of course frustrating: Reviewing a ...
Stephan Kolassa's user avatar
4 votes

Is it possible that the editor is still looking for other reveiwers while one reviewer has submitted the reviewer report?

I am an Associate Editor at the International Journal of Forecasting, and yes, this can absolutely happen. Unfortunately, potential reviewers are sometimes not very good about even replying whether ...
Stephan Kolassa's user avatar
4 votes

What is the best way of citing a colleagues not yet given conference presentation?

It is common to list such things in the normal way and then add "to appear" at the end. This assumes, of course, that the paper has been accepted and is in process for publication. Note also,...
Buffy's user avatar
  • 371k
4 votes

Handling cases of "potential" ChatGPT-generated reviews in non-anonymous program committees (as a PC member)

Since the program committee has some control over who the reviewers are, the alternate solution is to have a policy about AI generated reviews and to get reviewers to agree to abide by those policies. ...
Buffy's user avatar
  • 371k
4 votes
Accepted

Reviewing paper (probably) written by mentor?

This is a clear conflict of interest. Do not do this review and return it to the organising committee immediately with your concerns. Because even if the author is not your mentor, being convinced ...
The Doctor's user avatar
  • 4,318
4 votes

Review not needed after review

From an editor's perspective, this doesn't look good, and this isn't how the process should be run. "The review is no longer needed" notices make sense in case a paper is withdrawn, or a ...
Christian Hennig's user avatar
4 votes

Is it possible that the editor is still looking for other reveiwers while one reviewer has submitted the reviewer report?

Yes, it is certainly possible that the editor is seeking another reviewer (or reviewers). If the received review is equivocal in any way the editor may not be ready to make a decision. You can ask the ...
Buffy's user avatar
  • 371k
3 votes

How much is simplicity of ideas/approaches in a paper appreciated by journals and reviewers?

You should care less about journals and reviewers. More important are other researchers and people out there applying the ideas of your paper. They will love what you describe. You might have an ...
usr1234567's user avatar
  • 6,448
3 votes

Review not needed after review

They found another reviewer who completed the job. This may happen if you took too much time, but also sometimes, if they just got enough reviews. I wouldn't worry too much.
Captain Emacs's user avatar
3 votes

Handling cases of "potential" ChatGPT-generated reviews in non-anonymous program committees (as a PC member)

I would ignore whether the review was written with the assistance of a LLM. It isn't really important and it is hard to prove (And is there a point to proving this? Is there an explicit policy against ...
Kvothe's user avatar
  • 815
2 votes

Do published articles go through detailed check? And often require a extra data to be submitted

This is not common. You might get it if there's a challenge of some kind - a comment for example (see this for what a comment is in this context), an allegation of misconduct, a peer review failure ...
Allure's user avatar
  • 132k
2 votes

A platform for collaborative research projects?

Wikiversity's mission includes hosting collaborative research projects. It might be possible to use that platform for doing something like what you are proposing. Whatever the platform, the main ...
Sylvain Ribault's user avatar
2 votes

My supervisor is promoting my work (that I think has flaws) everywhere - what to do?

I do not want to be rude or anything, but just as an added comment, because your second note rubbed me the wrong way. In case the "flaws" are really just minor you don't have to worry, as ...
Sursula's user avatar
  • 21.5k
1 vote

Should Conference Paper Reviewers Conduct Preliminary Literature Searches Before Evaluating Submissions?

In theory, I don't think there is much difference between a conference review and a paper review. In practice, at least in my fields (business management and computer science), conference articles ...
Tripartio's user avatar
  • 9,437
1 vote

Should Conference Paper Reviewers Conduct Preliminary Literature Searches Before Evaluating Submissions?

I don't know of any statistics on this, and it almost certainly varies by field, conference, and even reviewer. But a good reviewer for a conference presentation will be a lot like a good reviewer for ...
Peter Flom's user avatar
  • 4,524

Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible