Read on Twitter
Strongly held opinion:
I don't like conference discussants. They can add value in principle, but in practice, they suck the air out of a conversation about a paper.
Core problem: discussants typically give a magnum opus on how they would reshape the paper if it were theirs. 1/
I don't like conference discussants. They can add value in principle, but in practice, they suck the air out of a conversation about a paper.
Core problem: discussants typically give a magnum opus on how they would reshape the paper if it were theirs. 1/
Of course, a discussant could just open up an interesting conversation by asking several key questions, while admitting that it is only one perspective.
But, the audience expects a magnum opus, and thus, everyone sits on their hands instead of speaking up. 2/
But, the audience expects a magnum opus, and thus, everyone sits on their hands instead of speaking up. 2/
With a discussant, you get a really deep dive from one point of view. With paper-improving ideas dispersed throughout the audience, sitting on hands leads to info loss.
This info loss harms authors who give conference presentations to source feedback to improve the paper. 3/
This info loss harms authors who give conference presentations to source feedback to improve the paper. 3/
As a result, at "discussed" conferences, you have to give many presentations to source enough opinions to improve the work sufficiently.
Result: too many presentations, too little information.
4/
Result: too many presentations, too little information.
4/
The problem is the discussant's incentives. A focused discussion that stimulates conversation is risky. If the discussant misses something, it looks bad.
The lowest risk strategy is to write a public referee report, but that's also not very interesting.
5/
The lowest risk strategy is to write a public referee report, but that's also not very interesting.
5/
As an aside, this isn't about any particular conference or discussion, but if I hear a discussant say a paper is "well written" one more time...
(I can't think why the audience would attend a talk to hear that a paper was well written, yet it somehow ends up in discussions)
6/
(I can't think why the audience would attend a talk to hear that a paper was well written, yet it somehow ends up in discussions)
6/
It is 9:30a.m. MT, and in three out of three discussions I've heard today, the discussant made the point that the paper was very clearly written.
