PulseAugur
中
实时 05:09:23
English(EN) Is EMNLP not going to Provide a MetaReview [D]

EMNLP 因缺乏元审稿且审稿人分数存在争议而受到批评

作者 PulseAugur 编辑部 · [1 个来源] ·

一位用户在 r/MachineLearning 上提问，质疑计算语言学经验方法会议 (EMNLP) 是否会为提交的论文提供元审稿。该用户表达了沮丧，称他们的论文在获得领域主席 (AC) 的积极推荐后，却被审稿人故意给出低分。他们正在寻求澄清，以了解 EMNLP 决定不提供元审稿是否基于这些低分，因为这会影响他们下一步的重新提交。 AI

排序理由 用户对会议审稿流程表达了意见和沮丧。

在 r/MachineLearning 阅读 →

AI 生成摘要 · Google Gemini · 来自 1 个来源。 我们如何撰写摘要 →

EMNLP 因缺乏元审稿且审稿人分数存在争议而受到批评

本文如何被排名

Signal score
0 / 100
Composite score across the factors below. Higher = stronger signal that this story matters right now.
Newsworthiness bucket
Commentary
用户对会议审稿流程表达了意见和沮丧。
Source corroboration
Single-source cluster
Only one publisher covered this so far. Single-source stories can still rank when the publisher is high-authority, but they lack cross-source corroboration.
Topics
other
Editorial topic classification. Feeds into how the story surfaces on /topic/<slug> hub pages and into the per-entity coverage mix.
AI-industry relevance
Standard
On-topic for AI-industry coverage; kept in the public index.
Story freshness
1 days old
Coverage has settled into its steady-state source set.

完整方法见我们的编辑标准。

报道来源 [1]

  1. r/MachineLearning TIER_1 English(EN) · /u/Massive-Bobcat-5363 ·

    EMNLP 是否不会提供元审阅 [D]

    <!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>As the title says, we haven't seen any like ACL provided. Very salty about the decision, as AC recommended findings and the reviewers tanked our paper intentionally (we flagged them, and AC acknowledged that). Just want to see if the decision was…

相关实体

相关话题