A crusade against rejected by novelty

Tips to get rid of the subjective label "your work lacks novelty. It's under the bar of the conference/journal".

Sorry to hear that. Out there, there is a frustrated 🤓 troll with a keyboard as solely weapon.

As an author receiving it,
1. Use something along these lines.
2. Politely squeeze it such that they spit that their judgment is based on a subjective perception.
When you are a reviewer, do your duty and obey the golden rule.
1. Spit out why it's not novel. How? This is what a reasonable AC/editor wants to read.
2. Don't collude with others. Challenge anyone claiming "not novel" during the discussion phase. You have a keyboard as well, let's collude against cyberbullying!
3. Be reasonable. If you are tough in CVPR, be flexible in ECCV/ICCV if there are significant revisions.
4. Be pragmatic. We don't need 100% rigor.
  1. I'm sure that I can come up with one missing experiment or claim for most accepted borderline papers. Is that a relevant reason for rejection?
  2. The NeurISP experiment shows that borderline decisions have a 50% chance. What's gonna happen if you let it pass?
As a conference organizer or editor in chief,
1. Be on top of your ACs/Editors.
2. Do a raffle and accept p% of papers rejected by novelty. Let's study the impact in 10 years.
3. Hold your reviewers and AC/Editors accountable. Let's upgrade our peer-review system!
  1. What about if ACs/Editors and reviewers own p% of the citations of the publications that they accept? Likewise, they won't own shares on rejected publications. Let's discuss what will happen. But, in another post 🙂

Provide feedback