What's the right way to do handle a ICML review stating that your paper doesn't sufficiently expand on a previous version at a workshop? Issues:
1. Workshop paper is non-archival so it shouldn't matter.
2. Reviewer must have googled paper (so no longer blinded).
4
2
11
Replies
Also: Is it best to message PC Chairs directly here? Concern is that resolving the issue through AC/SAC could lead to de-anonymization up the chain
0
0
0
@berkustun
In the rebuttal, state (1), but do not state that it's your work (it's *possible* that you are elaborating on that workshop paper). In a private note to the ACs, note concerns about (2). It's unlikely that the paper will be accepted - they will find a post-hoc reason to reject :(
2
0
4
@berkustun
I would message the AC here, ahead of the response deadline, and ask them to provide guidance to reviewers on whether workshop submissions constitute prior work.
0
0
2
