# Tag Info

22

I am not a native English speaker, but I don't think this is important here. The appropriate thing is not what an English professor or a poet suggests, but what is standard in the particular field. And from my experience, "we" is the standard in theoretical computer science. As noted by usul in his comment, you can interpret the "we" as the author including ...

21

The pronoun used is not in reference to the author or authors but about the reader, about the audience. We is used to include the reader in the process of discovering and understanding the result. Write the paper for the audience, not for you. This seems like a good place to plug Knuth, Larrabee, and Robert's notes on writing style in Mathematics. Pretty ...

19

I don’t think there’s a clear protocol. I’ve seen referees generously offer improvements. I’ve seen authors offer coauthorship for those improvements. I’ve seen the referee accept or decline the offer. Of course, it’s perfectly legitimate for you to wait for them to publish and then submit your improvement. Delaying by a few months is a gamble (might get ...

9

For NeurIPS (previously NIPS), the NeurIPS website itself is a good source: look for a paper, go to its page, and click on the "BibTex" link. Here is a random sample (!): ICML, COLT, and JMLR appear to have similar BibTex-ready websites: see http://proceedings.mlr.press/. For instance, going to the abstract of a randomly chosen paper from ICML'15: ICLR ...

7

I'm not a native English speaker but this is what I do in single-authored papers. (Or rather, what I would hypothetically do if I wrote single-authored papers :) ) 1) Throughout most of a technical paper, I use "we" to refer to the joint effort of the author and reader. That is, my interpretation is that a sentence in the abstract such as "We show that C=D....

6

Since the figure is otherwise mostly symmetric, I believe the 3 I mentioned two sentences ago should be replaced with a 1. Indeed, the 3 is obviously a typo. However, even if that is done, I do not see any way to determine the status of the zs even after... Am I missing something here? After $r$ is revealed: If it was a mine, you can reveal the ...

6

Apart from top conferences mentioned by @usul, I think Journal of the ACM (JACM) is a top journal in computer science, which also includes many excellent theoretical computer science papers. In addition, I read some papers published in Algorithmica. Also, just giving a reference, I find a link to some journals related to Discrete Mathematics (particularly ...

6

If you make an arXiv trackback you will not be ignored, in the sense that future readers of the ambitious arXiv paper may check the trackbacks. You even get a mild form of peer review for your posts, since they write: Because of widespread Trackback spam we have a semi-automated editorial process that approves trackbacks for display. As for where to ...

6

I made a flow chart describing what I think is the typical process in this case: You will notice many articles end with "We would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewer whose suggestions tremendously simplified the proof ..."

5

As an update, I noticed that DBLP has added ICLR to tracking as of today. Now it has ICLR papers and their bibtex available at https://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/iclr/

5

Usually I just cite the journal version. But (if the history is important) I would add a note to the same citation about earlier conferences or preprints. I think this style is preferable to making one paper look like two citations, except possibly in cases where the conference and journal papers have other significant differences than completeness (such as ...

4

I'm also not native english. However, I serve as a referee for about $20$ papers per year in theoretical computer science both for journals and conferences since a lot of years. This what I experienced up to now: I never came across a paper speaking in the first person, even when it was authored by a single person; even the first plural person ('we') seems ...

2

The ScienceOpen website has a page for most arXiv articles (e.g., here), and it has an option where you can post your own review of any preprint. I do not know if they are recommendable or not (but it seems that all hosted content is under a CC BY license), and I don't know if anyone would notice if you did it, but it exists.

1

Some reviewing guidelines state explicitly that referees are not supposed to communicate any original research as part of their review letter. If this is not the case, there is the option of telling the authors (as well as the area chairs) openly about the dilemma you find yourself in and, at the same time, sketching your generalization in sufficient detail. ...

1

By examples that use the atom $d_k$,i.e. those where $x_T^{k} (i)$ is nonzero, the authors are referring to the nonzero elements of the coefficient matrix $X$ because only nonzero elements play a role in multiplying two matrices. Since we seek to have a sparse representation, we only pay attention to the nonzero elements of $X$ and keep the zero elements ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible