一位研究人员正在寻求如何回应 NeurIPS 引用检查报告的指导，该报告标记了他提交的两篇论文。问题涉及作者姓名和会议细节的细微差异，其中一篇论文有两处引用因细微错误被标记，另一篇则因作者列表中的一个更严重的错误被标记。研究人员担心这些问题可能导致其论文被直接拒绝，并正在寻求关于适当回复渠道的建议。 AI
排序理由 该集群讨论了与学术会议的论文提交和评审过程相关的问题。
AI 生成摘要 · Google Gemini · 来自 2 个来源。 我们如何撰写摘要 →
NeurIPS 引用检查器标记论文存在作者/会议错误
本文如何被排名
- Signal score
- 5 / 100
- Composite score across the factors below. Higher = stronger signal that this story matters right now.
- Newsworthiness bucket
- Tool
- 该集群讨论了与学术会议的论文提交和评审过程相关的问题。
- Source corroboration
- 2 independent sources
- Multiple independent publishers reporting the same story raises confidence that it's real and newsworthy.
- Topics
- paper
- 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
- Breaking (< 6h)
- Fresh story with cross-source coverage still developing. Ranking may shift as more sources report.
完整方法见我们的编辑标准。
报道来源 [2]
-
NeurIPS Reference Checker Report[D]
<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I have received 2nd email from E&D track chairs regarding the reference checker report. I got flagged for 2 references</p> <ol> <li><p>Paper and Venue exist. The author's first name has 2 extra letters. </p></li> <li><p>Paper and Venue exist.…
-
NeurIPS 参考文献核查回复[D]
<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I have received the email for the NeurIPS E&D track reference review checker mentioning the 2 hallucinated references. Where do we respond to this email about hallucinated references? In the openreview, as a comment, or in the mail we have re…