I'm in a different area of CS. I've had reviews where the reviewer clearly skimmed over the math details. Still, the totally blank reviews in this article would not be accepted by program chairs in my area. They would find a new reviewer or ask the original reviewer to try again.
Is it harder to get a paper published in a given journal if you've blown off requests from them to peer review or done a crap job?
FWIW, I'm quite aware of what d&d is but I don't know what "chaotic neutral" means.
They join program committees for conferences, but they have a maniacal distaste for the peer reviewing system. There have been too many missed opportunities at the hands of ill-justified criticisms. They care so little for the process that they will actively try to sabotage it. They roll a d6 for each review and assign it the corresponding score. I was lucky this time, but many others haven't been.
Usually, they take great pleasure in writing an incomprehensible review with no relation to the text they've read. But today is different, they only have one review to write. They rolled an accept, now the dungeon master exposes their bidding.
You would not ordinarily expect a chaotic neutral in academia. Academia is very bureaucratic, which fits with a Lawful alignment. A chaotic neutral character isn't even going to pretend to care about the rules. It makes you wonder how the hell they have remained in the system this long when they are so obviously phoning it in with no effort and no pretense at making at effort. It is such an obvious fuck you and your damn rules attitude, it is incomprehensible how they have failed to get fired.
A chaotic neutral character is an individualist who follows their own heart and generally shirks rules and traditions. Although chaotic neutral characters promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first; good and evil come second to their need to be free.
The y represents what you trend towards (good v evil decisions) and the y represents the degree by which you do so.
So chaotic nuetral implies that you're generally nuetral, but its unpredictable when you'll make a good or evil decision (ie the reviewer somewhat arbitrarily lets you go on a non-critical mistake)
That said, we also are able to set a maximum # of interviews per week that we will accept, and our time is respected. Perhaps the same cannot be said for peer review in academia.
It's one of the worst feelings for me when I give a talk or present a paper, get to the Q&A portion, and I'm met with crickets.
If you know anyone in the crowd, it's a good idea to 'seed' the crowd with prepared questions or ask friends to kick off the q&a portion with a question of their own. We do this when we have guest speakers and it greatly improves the moral of the speakers and everyone goes home happier.
It absolutely isn't. Until you get tenure, you have to remove the word "no" from your vocabulary.
Of course, lots of public academics will say exactly the opposite, that you have to carefully and strategically choose what you say yes to, and give only one or two efforts your all. The hypocrisy! No one in modern academia can afford to do this! Look at the track record of the people that give you this advice - they all spread themselves paper-thin across eight or ten institutional collaborations, doing exactly just enough to get their name on something and then moving on.
That's the game, because that's what you get rewarded for, because that's what the system measures. Don't hate the player.
