The Mysterious Case of the Rejected NLP Paper: What Went Wrong?

The Mysterious Case of the Rejected NLP Paper: What Went Wrong?

Have you ever submitted a research paper to a reputable platform like arXiv, only to receive a rejection letter with no clear explanation? That’s exactly what happened to one of my colleagues, and I’m still trying to figure out why.

The paper in question was a survey on LLM-based conversational user simulation, and I’m not going to lie – it looks like a solid piece of work. We ran it through iThenticate, and it came out clean. No plagiarism detected. So, what did arXiv’s moderators find so objectionable?

The rejection letter was cryptic, to say the least. It simply stated that the submission would benefit from additional review and revision that is outside of the services they provide. But what does that even mean?

I went through arXiv’s moderation policies, and I couldn’t find anything that we might have infringed. It’s frustrating, to say the least.

## Theories Abound

One possibility is that the paper didn’t quite meet arXiv’s standards for originality or significance. Maybe it was too similar to existing work, or maybe it didn’t break new ground in the field of NLP. But without more specific feedback, it’s hard to say for sure.

Another theory is that the paper’s formatting or style didn’t conform to arXiv’s guidelines. Maybe the moderators were put off by something as simple as font size or citation style. Again, we’ll never know for sure.

## The Bigger Picture

This experience has left me wondering about the peer review process in general. Are we relying too heavily on automated tools and generic guidelines, rather than human judgment and expertise? Should we be giving more detailed feedback to authors, rather than simply rejecting their work with no explanation?

## What’s Next?

We’re not giving up on this paper just yet. We’ll revise it, resubmit it, and see what happens. And if all else fails, we’ll try submitting it to a conventional journal and see if we can get a more constructive review.

Has anyone else out there had a similar experience with arXiv or another research platform? Share your stories in the comments below!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *