I don't think it should be "reminders" in this sense. Yes one should push back against bad reviewers but with facts. And yes of course the facts can be taken from other reviews.
(ugh why did my auto-correct put in an extra "l")
BTW I literally had a paper accepted at a conference where the Area Chair flatly said "I overruled the rejecting reviewer since they didn't give a convincing counterargument to the rebuttal. "l". We should press editors/AR/primaries to also be critical of reviewers this way!
Yes I agree, but it needs to be done factually and dryly. That is, if R2 says "the paper has poor validation," then answer "we have great validation (R1, R3), see Figs 1--100".
Tbh some reviews I got were passing the inverse turning test, namely.that they were so silly and spiteful they could only have been written by a human,
Ok but it's them you need to convince so you should be directly targeting their claims,
The things reviewers care about:
1) authors understanding the criticism and offering minor-revision-worthy solutions,
2) concrete clarifications to misunderstandings and questions,
It's funny how we give importance to putting stuff in the rebuttal as authors that we don't care about at all as reviewers. The best example is setting a positive mood in the sense of "reviewers agreed we are actually quite amazing despite criticism" lol no don't tell me what I agreed to,
Teaching curvature today. Both the tube and the single Pringle are important,
Sorry I'm Curling-free talk to me when they do diverging,
Maybe I'm the worst boomer but I don't understand the point of virtually exploring 3D environments that don't reproduce as you come back to the same point,
I mean it's less bad than multiple ppl I heard say "Edinburgh, England",
(Utrecht is not Holland),,,
My Teddy's thrawn as thrawn can be an winna pey nae heed tae me,
The topology lecture of the year.
CVPR daily early morning email title: YOUR SUBMISSION IS GETTING DESK REJECTED AND DOXXED AS WE SPEAK URGENT ACTION NEEDED
Content: please don't forget the review deadline in a few days,
3. The PolyVector algorithm is customizable by iterations of "smooth-and-project" that are popular in nonlinear directional-field optimization.
4. Abstract cochain structure with an associated Hodge Decomposition, and exemplified on face-based FEM and DEC.
The big changes:
1. libigl and CGAL are no longer dependencies.
2. Visualization is done through PolyScope @nmwsharp.bsky.social
<<
After years (!) of work, Directional 3.0 (avaxman.github.io/Directional/) is finally released!
It's going to be a better job done than their usual remit,
The response "oops haha we fixed the reviewer leak right away but listen here god help me kids if you abused it we will reject all your papers from here to eternity" seemed totally inappropriate and tone-deaf. What about the "our ultra-expensive conferences built on your unpaid work betrayed you"?
If I had papers accepted but didn't write about them here did I truly have papers accepted,
It was a plot device in Day of the Tentacle,
It isn't, puzzles are not ill-defined,,,
We ain't getting anything better from any other side,
I mean it's fun to show cases where LLMs hallucinated stuff as a sort of auto da fe to the human rationale but honestly we can do a bigger demonstration of places where ppl of power and authority (at all levels) have been tear-inducingly stupid whereas LLMs gave reasonably balanced answers,
Do you have a research question or a challenge that could benefit from expert analysis, access to advanced resources, or additional funding?
Consider partnering with an MSc project at The University of Edinburgh.
Interesting visual artifact I just (think I) created: Which do you think is the wider image?
*Both exactly 533 pixels wide
Is this.....on purpose,
