Have you ever felt like the academic publishing process is more about beating the competition than advancing knowledge? A recent conversation on Reddit got me thinking about the state of publishing in top-tier venues like CVPR, NeurIPS, ICML, and ICCV/ECCV. It seems that reviewers often reject papers not based on their merit, but simply to maintain a certain acceptance rate. This zero-sum mentality means that one person’s rejection is another person’s acceptance, creating a cutthroat environment that values flashy results over good science.
As someone who’s been involved in the academic community, I’ve seen this play out time and time again. Reviewers will reject papers without providing constructive feedback, and rebuttals often fall on deaf ears. It’s disheartening to see that the focus has shifted from advancing our understanding of the world to chasing the next big breakthrough.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but I think it’s essential to acknowledge this problem and start working towards a more collaborative, merit-based system. What do you think? Have you experienced this firsthand, or do you have any ideas on how to change the status quo?