Saturday, April 20, 2013

EC 13 PC Kudos

As a PC member, some papers I review are sure accepts, some are sure rejects, it is in the majority of the middle solids I struggle. It is in how this majority is handled that PCs distinguish themselves.  I submitted something to EC 13. I got feedback that was more than the reviewers' notes. The feedback summarized the discussions the PC had, which was technical, found a flaw deep in the proof, discussed how to fix it pretty much how I would have thought about it, and also noted that the PC appreciated the contribution of the novelty of the model.  It felt like a two sided conversation between the authors and the PC. This feedback reinforced my belief and appreciation of the PCs in theory conferences. Thanks and congratulations to PC Chairs, Preston McAfee and Eva Tardos. The paper was not accepted, which was apt.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

What if the PC had missed the flaw in your proof but accepted the submission? Would u withdraw it as soon as u identify the flaw? Or let it publish & later submit a correction?

9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Being a researcher is may be like being a Trapeze artist: you execute your daring tricks using all your training and talent, and hope you dont ever have to confront a fall.

About the situation you describe: it needs a method I frequently use called the "sleep test". When I confront a potential flaw in my work and as usual my mind races to fix it, I should sleep on it for a day, and see if the morning brings more clarity. If I am convinced there is a flaw that I cant fix by the morning, I would think that the correct thing is to withdraw it before it is published.

-- metoo

7:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home