It’s Time to Improve the Scientific Paper Review Process – But How? | Science Publication - Synced

In recent years however peer review processes have come under fire - especially from the machine learning community - with complaints of long delays, inconsistent standards and unqualified reviewers by Synced.

Photo: Synced

The level-headed evaluation of submitted research by other experts in the field is what grants scientific journals and academic conferences their respected positions. Peer review determines which papers get published, and that in turn can determine which academic theories are promoted, which projects are funded, and which awards are won.

In recent years however peer review processes have come under fire — especially from the machine learning community — with complaints of long delays, inconsistent standards and unqualified reviewers.

A new paper proposes replacing peer review with a novel State-Of-the-Art Review (SOAR) system, “a neoteric reviewing pipeline that serves as a ‘plug-and-play’ replacement for peer review.”...

Machine learning has almost completely switched to a conference publication model, Bengio wrote, and “we go from one deadline to the next every two months.” In the lead-up to conference submission deadlines, many papers are rushed and things are not checked properly. The race to get more papers out — especially as first or co-first author — can also be crushing and counterproductive. Bengio is strongly urging the community to take a step back, think deeply, verify things carefully, etc.
Read more... 

Source: Synced