PulseAugur
中
实时 00:41:50
English(EN) TMLR reached out to the authors of 10 papers slated for desk rejection, in an attempt to understand if the authors could explain the paper they submitted [D]

TMLR 发现作者难以解释他们提交的论文

机器学习研究汇刊 (TMLR) 联系了十篇最初将被直接拒稿的论文的作者,以评估他们对自己工作的理解程度。调查结果表明,作者的参与度和理解力令人担忧,几位作者撤回了稿件,有的无法联系,有的未能回答关于他们论文的基本问题。只有一篇论文的作者能够回答所有问题,尽管在该论文中仍发现了一个重大缺陷。 AI

影响 凸显了机器学习领域提交的研究在质量和作者理解方面可能存在的问题。

排序理由 该集群讨论了与学术论文同行评审相关的流程和发现,符合“研究”类别。[lever_c_demoted from research: ic=1 ai=1.0]

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 →

TMLR 发现作者难以解释他们提交的论文

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
Tool
该集群讨论了与学术论文同行评审相关的流程和发现,符合“研究”类别。[lever_c_demoted from research: ic=1 ai=1.0]
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
paper, 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
High
Clearly on-topic for AI-industry coverage.
Story freshness
10 days old
Aged out of breaking-news scoring windows; ranking reflects the durable signal from the full 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/hihey54 ·

    TMLR联系了10篇将被拒稿的论文的作者,试图了解作者是否能解释他们提交的论文[D]

    <!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>You can read more here: <a href="https://medium.com/@TmlrOrg/asking-authors-about-their-own-papers-3d2e04e5dee0">https://medium.com/@TmlrOrg/asking-authors-about-their-own-papers-3d2e04e5dee0</a></p> <p>The results are (imho) concerning. Taken fr…