This is the metareview
September 18, 2025 at 6:50 PM
This is the metareview
At this point, you could probably publish a metareview of all of the papers that have demolished Cass's metareview of trans healthcare research.
April 10, 2026 at 11:36 AM
At this point, you could probably publish a metareview of all of the papers that have demolished Cass's metareview of trans healthcare research.
metareview score/decision need not be average of individual reviewer scores.
Metareview score even not need be
lowest reviewer score ≤ metareview score ≤ highest reviewer score
The metareviewer's job is to decide whether any reviewer concerns are publication blockers!
Metareview score even not need be
lowest reviewer score ≤ metareview score ≤ highest reviewer score
The metareviewer's job is to decide whether any reviewer concerns are publication blockers!
May 4, 2025 at 9:07 PM
metareview score/decision need not be average of individual reviewer scores.
Metareview score even not need be
lowest reviewer score ≤ metareview score ≤ highest reviewer score
The metareviewer's job is to decide whether any reviewer concerns are publication blockers!
Metareview score even not need be
lowest reviewer score ≤ metareview score ≤ highest reviewer score
The metareviewer's job is to decide whether any reviewer concerns are publication blockers!
The metareview was good?!.... what the hell. I thought this was almost getting rejected.
1.5 years in my PhD, 2 days before my EMNLP deadline, I am staring at the draft thinking I have genuinely no clue what I am doing.
July 31, 2026 at 2:29 PM
The metareview was good?!.... what the hell. I thought this was almost getting rejected.
I’ve been through many conference decision releases. The @iccv.bsky.social #ICCV2025 rollout was by far the smoothest. Decision, metareview & reviews released in a single email. HUGE shoutout to the program and technical chairs 💪
And don’t forget your AMAZING publicity chairs 😉
And don’t forget your AMAZING publicity chairs 😉
June 25, 2025 at 9:45 PM
I’ve been through many conference decision releases. The @iccv.bsky.social #ICCV2025 rollout was by far the smoothest. Decision, metareview & reviews released in a single email. HUGE shoutout to the program and technical chairs 💪
And don’t forget your AMAZING publicity chairs 😉
And don’t forget your AMAZING publicity chairs 😉
Did you know that Electric Bastionland had a 1st party adventure released for it? It did, and it's excellent (and short). Here is my review (also short, but is it excellent? I leave that to a future metareview) #osr #ttrpg
Review: Canal of Horrors — Prismatic Wasteland
A review of an Electric Bastionland one-shot. Is Chris McDowall one of the funniest writers in TTRPGs?
www.prismaticwasteland.com
May 12, 2026 at 12:28 PM
A (very small) silver lining of writing a metareview with dozens of spammed LLM rebuttals is that occasionally the authors' unproofed generated response gives the game away by saying something like "Your criticism is spot on—it points to a serious oversight that requires a major revision."
July 29, 2026 at 9:17 AM
A (very small) silver lining of writing a metareview with dozens of spammed LLM rebuttals is that occasionally the authors' unproofed generated response gives the game away by saying something like "Your criticism is spot on—it points to a serious oversight that requires a major revision."
I'm currently dealing with a situation where 2/3 reviewers of a paper have submitted the same crappy, equivocating LLM-generated review (paraphrased) of a paper I'm trying to metareview. It's unambiguous.
Please don't do this. It's unfair to the authors, and it's not even useful as a review.
Please don't do this. It's unfair to the authors, and it's not even useful as a review.
February 10, 2025 at 9:49 PM
I'm currently dealing with a situation where 2/3 reviewers of a paper have submitted the same crappy, equivocating LLM-generated review (paraphrased) of a paper I'm trying to metareview. It's unambiguous.
Please don't do this. It's unfair to the authors, and it's not even useful as a review.
Please don't do this. It's unfair to the authors, and it's not even useful as a review.
6Music news is at it again with the paracetamol-doesn't-cause-autism metareview, quoting - at length - what Trump said about it, as though two sets of equivalent professionals have a disagreement instead of scientists on one side and a crackpot on the other.
And on 6Music at 0630 and 0700. 6 also has a frustrating habit of starting bulletins with snippets of Trump speaking, which is the last thing I want to wake up to.
Oh, BBC. Jenrick urging British people to 'join the Reform movement' is not news. It's propaganda. Also 'writing in the Telegraph' behind a paywall is not a public announcement. Is it, BBC? Lead story on R3 at half-six.
January 17, 2026 at 9:34 AM
6Music news is at it again with the paracetamol-doesn't-cause-autism metareview, quoting - at length - what Trump said about it, as though two sets of equivalent professionals have a disagreement instead of scientists on one side and a crackpot on the other.
A couple of minutes ago, RFK Jr. said
"I was called a conspiracy theorist because I said fluoride lowered IQ. Last week JAMA published a metareview of 87 studies saying there is a direct inverse correlation between IQ loss ..."
we covered that study (& why many researchers took issue w/ it)
"I was called a conspiracy theorist because I said fluoride lowered IQ. Last week JAMA published a metareview of 87 studies saying there is a direct inverse correlation between IQ loss ..."
we covered that study (& why many researchers took issue w/ it)
What to know about a controversial new study on fluoride and IQ
Critics of a new study on water fluoridation and IQ are questioning its data and methodology.
www.statnews.com
January 29, 2025 at 5:20 PM
A couple of minutes ago, RFK Jr. said
"I was called a conspiracy theorist because I said fluoride lowered IQ. Last week JAMA published a metareview of 87 studies saying there is a direct inverse correlation between IQ loss ..."
we covered that study (& why many researchers took issue w/ it)
"I was called a conspiracy theorist because I said fluoride lowered IQ. Last week JAMA published a metareview of 87 studies saying there is a direct inverse correlation between IQ loss ..."
we covered that study (& why many researchers took issue w/ it)
Was AC for one of the papers. Went to metareview and noticed that two reviews were basically paraphrases of each other (down to ordering of weaknesses) and LLM generated. Noticed the paper was also weirdly well written garbage. Then I investigated the deadbeat reviewers, realized they don't exist.
February 13, 2025 at 4:41 AM
Was AC for one of the papers. Went to metareview and noticed that two reviews were basically paraphrases of each other (down to ordering of weaknesses) and LLM generated. Noticed the paper was also weirdly well written garbage. Then I investigated the deadbeat reviewers, realized they don't exist.
New publication: an #OpenAccess #SystematicReview by @learnineq.bsky.social
"A Metareview of Research on Educational Inequality and Socioeconomic Disadvantage"
www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/15...
"A Metareview of Research on Educational Inequality and Socioeconomic Disadvantage"
www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/15...
June 18, 2025 at 8:40 AM
New publication: an #OpenAccess #SystematicReview by @learnineq.bsky.social
"A Metareview of Research on Educational Inequality and Socioeconomic Disadvantage"
www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/15...
"A Metareview of Research on Educational Inequality and Socioeconomic Disadvantage"
www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/15...
Mario Weick will present the results of a metareview (a review of 149 reviews) of the relation between social class and mental health at this free in-person workshop at Durham University UK on Wednesday 12th March.
Sign up to attend here 👇
Sign up to attend here 👇
Many facets of social inequality - Workshop - Durham University
Institute of Advanced Study, Seminar Room, Cosin's Hall, Durham University, Palace Green, Durham, DH1 3RL
www.durham.ac.uk
March 7, 2025 at 9:03 PM
Mario Weick will present the results of a metareview (a review of 149 reviews) of the relation between social class and mental health at this free in-person workshop at Durham University UK on Wednesday 12th March.
Sign up to attend here 👇
Sign up to attend here 👇
Of course, in such cases the AC should discuss the position with reviewers and SAC, and eventually substantiate it clearly in the metareview for the authors, which is a lot more work!
January 24, 2025 at 10:19 AM
Of course, in such cases the AC should discuss the position with reviewers and SAC, and eventually substantiate it clearly in the metareview for the authors, which is a lot more work!
me: I love this paper. I hate that paper.
also me, when I have to write a metareview: Who can truly judge? Judge not lest ye be judged. Who among us has not run an experiment in a synthetic setting with a non-SoTA model. Has not called a linear model "AI". Has not assumed English is an HMM
also me, when I have to write a metareview: Who can truly judge? Judge not lest ye be judged. Who among us has not run an experiment in a synthetic setting with a non-SoTA model. Has not called a linear model "AI". Has not assumed English is an HMM
April 3, 2024 at 10:36 PM
me: I love this paper. I hate that paper.
also me, when I have to write a metareview: Who can truly judge? Judge not lest ye be judged. Who among us has not run an experiment in a synthetic setting with a non-SoTA model. Has not called a linear model "AI". Has not assumed English is an HMM
also me, when I have to write a metareview: Who can truly judge? Judge not lest ye be judged. Who among us has not run an experiment in a synthetic setting with a non-SoTA model. Has not called a linear model "AI". Has not assumed English is an HMM
that lady's horribly argued video about fanfics is the prime example but i possibly find vibe-based yet personal videos still preferable to quick, 20-something pseudo-thought pieces of rigurgitated opinions that everyone has already heard. at least be original and do a discourse metareview
December 5, 2025 at 4:32 PM
that lady's horribly argued video about fanfics is the prime example but i possibly find vibe-based yet personal videos still preferable to quick, 20-something pseudo-thought pieces of rigurgitated opinions that everyone has already heard. at least be original and do a discourse metareview
I'm so sorry. Absolutely ridiculous that this is where we find ourselves.
I guess I'm glad that at least they didn't just change the metareview? Although I'm sure that doesn't actually feel any better. I don't have anything helpful to offer -- I'm just very sorry and don't think it should happen.
I guess I'm glad that at least they didn't just change the metareview? Although I'm sure that doesn't actually feel any better. I don't have anything helpful to offer -- I'm just very sorry and don't think it should happen.
September 18, 2025 at 6:57 PM
I'm so sorry. Absolutely ridiculous that this is where we find ourselves.
I guess I'm glad that at least they didn't just change the metareview? Although I'm sure that doesn't actually feel any better. I don't have anything helpful to offer -- I'm just very sorry and don't think it should happen.
I guess I'm glad that at least they didn't just change the metareview? Although I'm sure that doesn't actually feel any better. I don't have anything helpful to offer -- I'm just very sorry and don't think it should happen.
adding a couple layers of metareview and calibration, of course
May 7, 2026 at 2:18 PM
adding a couple layers of metareview and calibration, of course
IEEE S&P has removed the decision types of "major revision" and "minor revision". Instead they have introduced the concept of "accept with reservations", in which there is a public metareview published with the paper. I think I like this idea.
October 23, 2025 at 4:07 AM
IEEE S&P has removed the decision types of "major revision" and "minor revision". Instead they have introduced the concept of "accept with reservations", in which there is a public metareview published with the paper. I think I like this idea.
Like, what percentage of people could correctly answer "Which is more scientifically credible: a RCT study done by a credible institution, or a metareview of cohort studies?"
I think even a lot of people with relatively good general scientific understandings would get this wrong.
I think even a lot of people with relatively good general scientific understandings would get this wrong.
July 21, 2025 at 12:16 PM
Like, what percentage of people could correctly answer "Which is more scientifically credible: a RCT study done by a credible institution, or a metareview of cohort studies?"
I think even a lot of people with relatively good general scientific understandings would get this wrong.
I think even a lot of people with relatively good general scientific understandings would get this wrong.
All this discourse of having 50k submissions to AAAI, and no one is talking about that we would get AI reviews on our submissions.
Who is making such policies?
Who is making such policies?
July 27, 2026 at 8:21 PM
All this discourse of having 50k submissions to AAAI, and no one is talking about that we would get AI reviews on our submissions.
Who is making such policies?
Who is making such policies?
Metareview
HPV Vaccination after Primary Treatment of HPV-Related Disease across Different Organ Sites: A Multidisciplinary Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis
Objective: To assess evidence on the efficacy of adjuvant human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in patients treated for HPV-related disease across different susceptible organ sites. Methods: A system...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
April 28, 2025 at 10:23 PM
Metareview
Having a large number of short ARR cycles a year doesn’t make sense to me. Since there is no arxiv anonymity period anymore, we can move to less rushed cycles, more engagement during discussion period and better review/metareview quality given the extra time
November 25, 2024 at 9:04 AM
Having a large number of short ARR cycles a year doesn’t make sense to me. Since there is no arxiv anonymity period anymore, we can move to less rushed cycles, more engagement during discussion period and better review/metareview quality given the extra time
I'm sorry to see you're receiving these kinds of comments :( to offer a positive view: I really appreciated that the PCs took a hard stance on review/metareview completion. As an SAC, it was great to be able to focus on the research and not spend hours chasing missing reviews and calling in favors
April 6, 2026 at 9:16 PM
I'm sorry to see you're receiving these kinds of comments :( to offer a positive view: I really appreciated that the PCs took a hard stance on review/metareview completion. As an SAC, it was great to be able to focus on the research and not spend hours chasing missing reviews and calling in favors
Uff, vaya tela... y es que estoy leyendo cada cosa estos días (sobre todo del ICML... algunos competían en tener el paper rechazado con la nota más alta... iban por 4.6/5). Y muchos papers con notazas tumbados en el metareview. Pero lo tuyo es peor, hasta el metareview es positivo! 🙃
May 3, 2026 at 8:41 PM
Uff, vaya tela... y es que estoy leyendo cada cosa estos días (sobre todo del ICML... algunos competían en tener el paper rechazado con la nota más alta... iban por 4.6/5). Y muchos papers con notazas tumbados en el metareview. Pero lo tuyo es peor, hasta el metareview es positivo! 🙃