Post AhP5Pj7HJOmepVMmxM by MartinEscardo@mathstodon.xyz
(DIR) More posts by MartinEscardo@mathstodon.xyz
(DIR) Post #AhP5Pj7HJOmepVMmxM by MartinEscardo@mathstodon.xyz
2024-04-29T21:17:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Why do most papers in CS conferences say "novel" repeatedly now a days? I find this extremely irritating.It is up to me, as the reader, to judge whether this is novel or not.Please tell me what you have done, rather than telling me that (you think) it is novel. Don't tell me that your results are important, or surprising, or anything like that. I will judge the importance or surprise or novelty.It is not like if you didn't tell me it is important (if indeed it is) I wouldn't notice.And if it is not novel, why would you be submitting it to the conference, anyway?
(DIR) Post #AhP5PkglSwlPhqyduK by ohad@mathstodon.xyz
2024-04-29T22:20:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@MartinEscardo @zyang and @jonmsterling said it: it's written for the reviewers. It's no longer the case that a specialist paper is guaranteed, nor even likely, to get 2 or more reviewers who have tried something like this before and will form an opinion about novelty from an expert position.So when writing A is novel, and B is novel, and C is novel, the expert says 'yes, yes, yes', and the non expert says 'I'm not an expert, but A,B, and C seem novel' and feel comfortable accepting the submission.
(DIR) Post #AhP5PlzEdl8HjQcuKu by MartinEscardo@mathstodon.xyz
2024-04-29T22:21:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ohad @zyang @jonmsterling Is that supposed to justify how papers should be written, or that the conference publication system in CS is rotten?
(DIR) Post #AhP5Pm7O9Ree8iRQ2q by MartinEscardo@mathstodon.xyz
2024-04-29T21:39:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I will delete this post tomorrow morning. For the moment, I will keep it in protest for the irritation this causes to me.
(DIR) Post #AhP5PmSItgNvBaE7e4 by robinadams@mathstodon.xyz
2024-04-30T04:37:51Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@MartinEscardo @ohad @zyang @jonmsterling It's much wider than just CS conferences. The academic publishing system has huge problems. Overuse of the word 'novel' is very mild as symptoms go.
(DIR) Post #AhP5Pn0gpptGuEJaF6 by gentoobro@gleasonator.com
2024-04-30T05:11:31.076238Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@robinadams @MartinEscardo @ohad @zyang @jonmsterling Academia has become so self-focused that I'm now genuinely surprised when anything useful comes out of it at all.
(DIR) Post #AhP5PpTpeSOEZBxswa by MartinEscardo@mathstodon.xyz
2024-04-29T22:34:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I said "I will delete this post tomorrow morning. For the moment, I will keep it in protest for the irritation this causes to me."Should I keep my promise?
(DIR) Post #AhP5Ppum2HwNukZOwC by MartinEscardo@mathstodon.xyz
2024-04-29T21:51:05Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
It's fine to say, in your paper, that (in your view) *somebody else's* results are interesting, novel, surprising, important, etc. But such statements about your own work carry no weight.
(DIR) Post #AhP5PqzQ2VFbFRkcoi by ohad@mathstodon.xyz
2024-04-29T22:29:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@MartinEscardo @zyang @jonmsterling other mechanisms that degrade the paper, but ease refereeing:1. Repeatedly referring back to the paper structure:end of section A: ... we have shown X, and next we will show Y. \section B having shown X, let's turn to Y.(Rationale: referee is not really interested in the paper, so might lose the plot, or has a stack of papers to read between meetings, on the bus, etc and loses the bug structure.)2. Not citing related work during the technical development. Instead, cite it in related work section. Rationale: makes technical development seem more novel to nonexpert while an expert will likely not complain if the citation exists. Bulks up related work section and makes it seem in-depth because it is more technical.
(DIR) Post #AhP5Ptey6zftWtCprE by MartinEscardo@mathstodon.xyz
2024-04-29T22:06:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"But such statements about your own work carry no weight."I would say more: they make your paper seem suspicious.