Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SoylentOrange 1180 days ago
This seems much more like a problem for the journal and reviewer than it does about ChatGPT. I am a reviewer at several computer science publications. This behaviour is likely against the publication's code of conduct for reviewers. If the author complains to the chair then it is likely their paper will be re-evaluated and the reviewer banned from giving further reviews for that conference. Being a reviewer for a top conference is a highly sought-after honour so the chair knows that it's (a) better for the prestige of the publication if reviewers are discouraged from this type of action; (b) replacing any reviewer is easy as there are many qualified applicants to choose from.

In the future, I anticipate that codes of conduct will more explicitly specify that while you may use automated tools to assist you, you must ultimately write your own review.
1 comments
auggierose 1180 days ago
> Being a reviewer for a top conference is a highly sought-after honour

Is it?

link
SoylentOrange 1180 days ago
In the computer science academic sphere, the conferences at which one is a reviewer is among the top items on a CV. It implies that you are such a pillar and expert in that community that they would ask you to referee the merits of incoming academic work. Usually to be invited as a reviewer at a top venue, you should have a history of successfully having your work accepted to that venue. That's very difficult as acceptance rates for top CS venues are generally around 20%, and even experienced submitters often have papers rejected. My paper was actually recently rejected from Oakland (a top CS security venue).
link
auggierose 1180 days ago
Now things become clear! I always thought as an academic you should just read and evaluate those papers you are interested in. Which for me is really a minuscule proportion of all papers submitted. Maybe academia as a business isn't such a good idea.
link
noobermin 1180 days ago
Being a good figure in a conference planning is a sought honor. Reviewing is the grunt work you have to do in order to get that honor I guess, that's the thought process.
link