Ecosyste.ms: Awesome

An open API service indexing awesome lists of open source software.

Awesome Lists | Featured Topics | Projects

https://github.com/uds-se/autoreject

Autoreject.org — An automatic review generator
https://github.com/uds-se/autoreject

publications reject review science

Last synced: 8 days ago
JSON representation

Autoreject.org — An automatic review generator

Awesome Lists containing this project

README 

        
# Autoreject - An Automatic Review Generator



Too many review assignments on your plate?  With autoreject, you can produce long and detailed reviews at the touch of a button, simply by filling out a short form.  [Check it out here!](https://uds-se.github.io/autoreject/)



April 1, 2019 - Andreas Zeller



## Frequently Answered Questions



### Is this for real?



Autoreject is an April's Fools joke.  No reviewer with a clear mind would ever use such a tool, right?  Choose from options and enjoy!



### Where do these text snippets come from?



The "arguments" in the generator are all inspired by real reviews and arguments I have collected over time.  This includes reviews colleagues and I have gotten for our papers, co-reviews of papers I reviewed, and discussions in PC meetings.  I also follow [ShitMyReviewersSay](https://twitter.com/YourPaperSucks) for inspiration.



### Why a site like this?



With this site, I hope to raise some attention towards the problem of overly formalistic reviews - that is, "reviews" that take only a very shallow, "syntactical" look into a paper without considering its potential and deeper implications.  Plus, it is a rhetorical exercise - namely, how to turn any argument into rejection.



### Do such formalistic reviews actually exist?



Of course!  As a reviewer, you can make your life easier by pointing out one of the "issues" in the autoreject reviews.  Ignore the work's potential; ignore whether it may make some difference.  Avoid making a difficult decision and go for the first flaw you can find.



### Are reviews really this bad?



No.  While some reviews may be problematic, most reviewers are driven by the honest desire to understand and value the submitted material.  If a reviewer rejects your paper for whatever arguments, you should always ask yourself what you could and should have done to improve.  A "shallow" review often indicates that the reviewer was not motivated enough to get deeper, possibly because s/he had a bad day, but more likely because your paper could have done better.  Improve and try again.



### The form does not fit my branch of science.



I am active in the Software Engineering community, so the site is geared towards arguments, methods, and reviews in that community.  I'll happily include variants specialized for your community - e.g., for medicine or history.



### What are all the possible outcomes?



Feel free to experiment with the site.  If you want to cheat, examine the [source code](https://github.com/uds-se/autoreject/blob/master/index.html); this is where you can find all the snippets and their conditions.



### Is there a way to get your paper accepted?



Yes.  Two, to be precise.



## License



The content of this project itself is licensed under the [Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), and the underlying source code used to format and display that content is licensed under the [MIT license](LICENSE.md).