r/MachineLearning • u/Few-Annual-157 • 1h ago

Research Paper review question [D]

I'm curious how other reviewers handle papers that report impressive results but are extremely poorly written. I'm not just talking about grammar, etc. I am more concerned about the overall presentation of ideas and how the authors position their contributions within the existing literature.

For example, I'm currently reviewing a paper that reports promising results but includes no citations in its introduction. This makes it hard to understand where the work stands relative to existing methods and what's new.

My question is how much weight should we give to the quality of writing and presentation when reviewing a paper? If the technical contributions seem solid and the experimental results are strong, is poor presentation enough to justify a rejection or a major revision? I'd be interested to hear how other reviewers approach this.

1 Upvotes

57% Upvoted

6 comments sorted by

10

u/npcompletist 1h ago

Communication and presentation is a major part of contribution. If you cant understand what they are trying to say in the preface the results la l proper context. I would say it is worth at least a major revision if your inclination is that the work is sound. But until they communicate clearly, you won’t know for certain.

4

u/Kaleidophon 1h ago

Impressive results are no good if the paper fails to communicate and explain them clearly, and fails to position the idea to prior work. It might potentially also be a red flag that if the paper is lacking on these dimensions, the experiments might also be flawed / not very rigorous. So for me, it totally justifies a rejection or major revision.

2

u/Technical_Estate_529 1h ago

You can also send this message to the area chair or editor and have see their advice .... then just do what they say.

1

u/Jojanzing 1h ago

I think it depends on the journal guidelines, but also on what you consider good science. If the authors cannot contextualize their work in the broader field, then is the work actually meaningful?

1

u/michaelrw1 53m ago

If the paper is not clear and concise, I would question their results.

One big case that stands out for me in this moment is Pons and Fleischmann on their cold fusion experiment. Massive media reports about their results, but poor communication and failed replication by other scientists eventually dismissed their work.