Hacker News Reader

Weird, I've had a very different experience reviewing for two big ACM conferences. The rejected papers are usually a bit too narrow of a contribution, but you'll usually see them appear in respected smaller venues soon after. Most of the horrible unacceptable work gets culled out in earlier passes before reviewers even see it.

View on HN

ACM has a wide range of conferences. There are conferences with an A* ranking, but also ones with a C ranking. Submissions to A*-conferences are not 80% garbage.

http://portal.core.edu.au/conf-ranks/?search=acm&by=all

Your link shows that over 75% of the conferences are B or lower. So sure, the submissions to A* conferences are not 80% garbage, but these conferences are 4% of the total. Not really representative of academic work as a whole.

Sure, I was just giving a possible reason for the different experiences of reviewing for ACM conferences.

Oh hey, cool! My paper writing up my MSc thesis was at a B-grade conference with a 26% acceptance rate. That's actually more selective than I expected, given my opinion of my own work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com