Change my mind: Conferences should move to a year-round submission window with papers reviewed in the regular review cycle. That way papers are time stamped and the pressure (especially on our early researchers) of being “scooped” is ameliorated to a degree.

Hello World!🍐

We're finally getting started, can't wait to hear what you all think!🍐

PeerXiv -- not sure how to pronounce it, but it looks like another interesting take on peer-reviewing (peerxiv.web.app/about). I like the idea of not using an accept/reject score but rather using categories (Presentation, Novelty, Significance, Reproducibility, and Validation)

The recent debates about the flaws of the publication system make me wonder whether there has been some progress in scientific practice during my (scientific) lifetime. I defended my PhD in 2012. Let's see what happened in 10 years. 1/n

🍐📃

“Peer review is not perfect but there are no better alternatives” x.com/RexChapman/sta…

The community should focus more on positive ways to encourage reviewers instead of finding new ways to scare them away 😕

Yann LeCun Wasn't aware of this, very interesting read! The PeerXiv proposal/proof-of-concept we published a few months ago actually shares many similarities to the properties described in the pamphlet. Would have probably been more if we'd seen it before 🍐 x.com/EladRichardson…

anon period in NLP venues is a bad idea that does a lot of harm and no good whatsoever. let's get rid of it. (if someone can demonstrate a good outcome, and I mean demonstrate, not just hand-wave about equality, I am open to hearing and being convinced otherwise).