Editing Openai/694a9a91-d810-8013-80fe-0c38fdc58984 (section)

=== Assistant: The Edit ===
The Edit

I recently caught myself writing this sentence in an ECIS review:

: 

The paper had issues. Many of them. Rigor, contribution, positioning in prior work—nothing was “done.”

Yet I still recommended acceptance.

Why?

Because in the GenAI era, my main review question has shifted:

Is this worth 20 minutes of the audience’s time?

Not:
* Is it already journal-ready?
* Is every method airtight?
* Is the theory perfectly polished?

But:
* Will the audience in Milano gain something concrete?
* Will the authors benefit from presenting it?
* Will this trigger a real conversation afterward?

Conferences are not journals.
They are attention markets.

If a paper sparks thinking, debate, or disagreement—and makes people stay in the room instead of checking email—it has earned its slot.

Everything else still matters. But it is secondary.

Disclaimer: this reflection is based on confidential comments to editors and does not violate double-blind review rules.

#academia #GenAI #conferences

The Value Check

This version reframes reviewing around audience attention and learning, not perfection—something reviewers, authors, and conference organizers all quietly struggle with today.