The assessment is indeed less encouraging than CVPR2022. As anticipated, we drew another reviewer pool. Thus, the discrepancy 🥲.
With less skin in the game, yet after playing it and getting defeated many times, I conclude that:
-
There are usually lessons to distill after any peer review process
-
I don't see an exception here. Thus,
-
Cheer up. You should feel glad for participating irrespective of the disappointing results.
Academia is a long-term game with sparse, often unclear rewards.
-
here, you got a reward (in principle negative).
-
It's up to you to distill the knowledge to tighten up your game 🙂💪. I might help 😊, but help me to help you.
You should reflect on the journey to make the next cycle more successful.
-
As I told you once, the scientific research job is about:
-
reading and digesting ideas for coming up with ours
-
implementing them (doing the work, analyzing results, making decisions)
-
disseminating them (writing, reviewing & rebuttals, presenting the work)
-
-
You can still practice most of them while crafting a rebuttal 😉.
It seems that you are hopeless, and I don't like creating high expectations. If I know that I will die in two months, I will take a huge credit line 😂.
I will be precise. You can practice creative rhetoric & persuasive writing.
-
If there are misunderstandings, why not try to clarify them?
-
If a reviewer thinks our work is NOT novel, why not persuade them?
-
If a reviewer thinks that another work is relevant, why not read it and explain it?
-
If a reviewer thinks that a baseline is missing or results are not significant, why not run an experiment?
Moreover, if we don't dispute, the AC will assume that our fellow reviewers are right. We will boost their ego, and they will keep killing papers.
Improving the ratings and getting a drop of honey out of bees is a small victory. Why postpone it until the next iteration?
Hope the words above help deal with the pain 😊.