from Hacker News

No Comments

by savara on 10/13/17, 4:16 PM with 22 comments

• by blt on 10/13/17, 8:20 PM

  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.

• by r00fus on 10/13/17, 9:23 PM

  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."

• by sleepydog on 10/13/17, 9:40 PM

  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.

• by conbandit on 10/13/17, 7:54 PM

  Almost as bad as the responses one can expect from job applications.

• by sulam on 10/14/17, 2:48 AM

  I have to say, life in academia does not sound appealing...