zlacker

  > I feel like many reviewers expect half the paper to be a tutorial if it is not a trendy topic. 

I tried to push a paper using a GAN to a workshop. I was asked to spend more time explaining what a GAN is "for those unfamiliar with the topic." I was baffled. Sure, ML moves fast, but that's catastrophic forgetting right there... (and in a fucking workshop?!)

I honestly believe that if someone is not intimately familiar with GANs then they should not be reviewing for a generative vision workshop.

  > I feel like many reviewers expect half the paper to be a tutorial if it is not a trendy topic. 

The difficulty of this gets harder with different topics. Generative works should show samples. But how much? How representative? These are crucial to evaluating the work but they devour your text limits.

It is always easy to ask for more. But with page limits there are clearly limits. I think it is too subjective. I wish we went more the direction of math papers which are often VERY short. Use as much space as you need. No more, no less. I think the formats are just too limiting (not to mention that paper isn't great for a lot of topics like video, point cloud, audio, pose estimation, and many others. But momentum is a powerful force.