The author's expanded definition of "weak accept" is perfect.
I'm in a different area of CS. I've had reviews where the reviewer clearly skimmed over the math details. Still, the totally blank reviews in this article would not be accepted by program chairs in my area. They would find a new reviewer or ask the original reviewer to try again.
Peer reviewing is considered duty to the academy but isn't tracked, publicized, or taken into account in e.g. lateral transfers, summer grants, or other things professors might want, right?
Is it harder to get a paper published in a given journal if you've blown off requests from them to peer review or done a crap job?
This is great: "This is no ordinary adversary that you would expect to face in an academic review. This person sits in the chaotic neutral section of the d&d morality compass."
Though it's expecting the audience to know what that means. I would expect that a greater number of them would understand it than in the general population but I would think there'd be plenty who don't.
FWIW, I'm quite aware of what d&d is but I don't know what "chaotic neutral" means.
I don't work in academia, but at my current workplace, we've removed the "Neutral" rating in our interview feedback system. You're required to pick a side, and you need to back up your position. If you really can't form a recommendation, the candidate has to do another interview (I haven't personally seen this happen).
That said, we also are able to set a maximum # of interviews per week that we will accept, and our time is respected. Perhaps the same cannot be said for peer review in academia.
It's one of the worst feelings for me when I give a talk or present a paper, get to the Q&A portion, and I'm met with crickets.
> It's one of the worst feelings for me when I give a talk or present a paper, get to the Q&A portion, and I'm met with crickets.
If you know anyone in the crowd, it's a good idea to 'seed' the crowd with prepared questions or ask friends to kick off the q&a portion with a question of their own. We do this when we have guest speakers and it greatly improves the moral of the speakers and everyone goes home happier.
> That said, we also are able to set a maximum # of interviews per week that we will accept, and our time is respected. Perhaps the same cannot be said for peer review in academia.
It absolutely isn't. Until you get tenure, you have to remove the word "no" from your vocabulary.
Of course, lots of public academics will say exactly the opposite, that you have to carefully and strategically choose what you say yes to, and give only one or two efforts your all. The hypocrisy! No one in modern academia can afford to do this! Look at the track record of the people that give you this advice - they all spread themselves paper-thin across eight or ten institutional collaborations, doing exactly just enough to get their name on something and then moving on.
That's the game, because that's what you get rewarded for, because that's what the system measures. Don't hate the player.
[+] [-] blt|8 years ago|reply
I'm in a different area of CS. I've had reviews where the reviewer clearly skimmed over the math details. Still, the totally blank reviews in this article would not be accepted by program chairs in my area. They would find a new reviewer or ask the original reviewer to try again.
[+] [-] bradleyjg|8 years ago|reply
Is it harder to get a paper published in a given journal if you've blown off requests from them to peer review or done a crap job?
[+] [-] r00fus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jamesrcole|8 years ago|reply
FWIW, I'm quite aware of what d&d is but I don't know what "chaotic neutral" means.
[+] [-] sleepydog|8 years ago|reply
That said, we also are able to set a maximum # of interviews per week that we will accept, and our time is respected. Perhaps the same cannot be said for peer review in academia.
It's one of the worst feelings for me when I give a talk or present a paper, get to the Q&A portion, and I'm met with crickets.
[+] [-] api_or_ipa|8 years ago|reply
If you know anyone in the crowd, it's a good idea to 'seed' the crowd with prepared questions or ask friends to kick off the q&a portion with a question of their own. We do this when we have guest speakers and it greatly improves the moral of the speakers and everyone goes home happier.
[+] [-] munin|8 years ago|reply
It absolutely isn't. Until you get tenure, you have to remove the word "no" from your vocabulary.
Of course, lots of public academics will say exactly the opposite, that you have to carefully and strategically choose what you say yes to, and give only one or two efforts your all. The hypocrisy! No one in modern academia can afford to do this! Look at the track record of the people that give you this advice - they all spread themselves paper-thin across eight or ten institutional collaborations, doing exactly just enough to get their name on something and then moving on.
That's the game, because that's what you get rewarded for, because that's what the system measures. Don't hate the player.
[+] [-] conbandit|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wakamoleguy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sulam|8 years ago|reply