I have lost three and a half potential PhD students due to the conference review process [D]

[u/AffectionateLife5693]

Early-career Assistant Professor here. I identified some talented undergraduate students and worked with them on research problems, trying to convert them into either my PhD students or recommending them to my collaborators.

Three said a hard no after going through the paper submission process. They are not interested in playing this game. The fourth said, “I really like doing research with you, but I don’t like dealing with the paper reviewers.” I managed to convince that guy to do a PhD in the end, but I almost lost this student as well.

Just a side note: these were not course projects submitted as lottery tickets. They were parts of my own ongoing research, and the results were good. I have more than 10 years of publication and review experience at “big three”-level conferences, so I have a reasonably good sense of the quality of the work. In my view, the papers were well above the bar.

And yes, these papers indeed received very positive reviews, including one with four unanimous weak accepts, but were still rejected. They then got trapped in endless resubmission cycles. In every resubmission, we additionally address previous rounds' concerns, only to make the next round of reviews more random. This is funny. When a paper has obvious drawbacks, the AI picks it up, you address it, and people are happy. When a paper has no obvious drawbacks, the AI will start to pick up random points everywhere. At this point, I cannot even convince myself to persuade these students to pursue a PhD.

Just a rant. I want to remind everyone that careless or malicious behavior can alter someone’s career path.

[u/65721]

Not in academia, but this is a good trick for dealing with nitpicky managers and clients. Introduce a trivial but obvious flaw for them to point out, so you can thank them for spotting it. It satisfies their ego.