People evaluate papers differently. It could be that someone makes an objective mistake, but it could also be different taste functions. Ivo has a paper showing that the correlation between reviewers is pretty low.
Midwest Finance 2023
-
How could one increase the change of getting in these conferences? should I write a paper at the level where dumb reviewers easily understand from reading the abstract only or the first one or two pages?
You need to work on a hot topic or with famous people. If you don't, your unconditional probability of getting accepted drops down to less than 5%. Many conference reviewers spend less than 5 minutes on every paper. It's not even "objective mistake", they don't even try to get it right.
-
our paper got accepted at a top 3, but got dinged from this s***y conference.
i spend an average of 10 minutes per paper when i'm doing MFA review work.
getting rejected from here is not a very informative signal.it could be your paper got into a top 3 because of connection and lucky referees
-
this
our paper got accepted at a top 3, but got dinged from this s***y conference.
i spend an average of 10 minutes per paper when i'm doing MFA review work.
getting rejected from here is not a very informative signal.it could be your paper got into a top 3 because of connection and lucky referees