Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
greatresearch.org | ||
| | | | |
ehudreiter.com
|
|
| | | | | A few comments on how I review papers (what I actually do, not what I am supposed to do), and associated advice for authors. | |
| | | | |
jacobbuckman.com
|
|
| | | | | In light of the recent discussions on the *ACL reviewing process on Twitter, I want to share some thoughts. Do We Need Peer Review? Specifically, do we need double-blind peer review of the sort that conferences provide? I'm in full agreement with Ryan that it is an essential service for... | |
| | | | |
windowsontheory.org
|
|
| | | | | Michael Mitzenmacher pointsto two posts ofSuresh Venkatasubramanian on the issue of so called "double blind reviews" (i.e., anonymous submissions) in theory conferences. In short, both Michael and Suresh think they are a good idea. I agree with much of their motivations, but, based on my experience in both non-blinded (e.g., STOC/FOCS) and blinded (e.g., CRYPTO) | |
| | | | |
andrewpwheeler.com
|
|
| | | The default hypothesis tests that software spits out when you run a regression model is the null that the coefficient equals zero. Frequently there are other more interesting tests though, and this is one I've come across often -- testing whether two coefficients are equal to one another. The big point to remember is that... | ||
