[lgessler]

I think this is both a harmful and irrational attitude. Why focus on some trivial mechanical errors and disparage the authors for it instead of the thing that is much more important, i.e., the substance of the work? And in dismissing work for such trivial reasons, you risk ignoring things you might have otherwise found interesting.

In an ideal world would second-language speakers of English proofread assiduously? Of course, yes. But time is finite, and in cases like this, so long as a threshold of comprehensibility is cleared, I always give the benefit of the doubt to the authors and surmise that they spent their limited resources focusing on what's more important. (I'd have a much different opinion if this were marketing copy instead of a research paper, of course.)

[dTal]

>in dismissing work for such trivial reasons, you risk ignoring things you might have otherwise found interesting

Not dismissing work for trivially avoidable mistakes risks wasting your precious, limited lifespan investing effort into nonsense. These signals are useful and important. If they couldn't be bothered to proofread, what else couldn't they be bothered to do?

>spent their limited resources focusing on what's more important

Showing that you give a crap is important, and it takes seconds to run through a spell checker.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

Well, it not exactly a research paper, more an overview of the problem and suggested techniques, but it'd still be interesting to hear some criticism based on the content rather than the (admittedly odd) omission to run it through a spell checker. I do wonder why it was written in English, apparently targeting a western audience.

Two of the authors are from "Shanghai AI Labs" rather than students, so one might hope it had at least been proofread and passed some sort of muster.