CSPaper: sidekick of peer review

See here for a crowd-sourced score distribution (biased ofc): https://papercopilot.com/statistics/acl-statistics/acl-2025-statistics/ [image: 1743634054428-screenshot-2025-04-03-at-00.47.22.png]

Interesting research that got accepted by EMNLP 2023 findings.

334 222 234 124 335 223 344 445 233 122

It is heating up. The scale and tooling for peer review will have to catch up.

The ICBINB workshop webpage had a section about this - "AI-Generated Papers" in the reviewer guidelines https://sites.google.com/view/icbinb-2025/reviewer-guidelines [image: 1742515641656-screenshot-2025-03-21-at-01.07.09.png]

And ... Mamba2 was accepted by ICML2024 apparently

@xiaolong yeah, right? Hopefully we do not hear such news in 2025 and onwards…

Thanks for raising this important topic! Reproducibility is indeed crucial, especially in ML, and something our community needs to actively improve. Encouraging clearer standards during peer review could definitely help. Platforms like "Papers Without Code" are great initiatives to highlight issues. The pushing for open code, better documentation, and transparency is an important effort. Curious to hear more thoughts from everyone: What practical steps could reviewers or conferences take to boost reproducibility?