I never understood the logic peer reviewed conferences. For example take 2 top conferences in any sub field of ML, now why are these 2 conferences top conferences? Do they become top conferences just by limiting the number of papers they accept? The people who review for these conferences are also the same so what makes them different. Also the capabilities of each reviewer are different so how are scores from each reviewer given the same weightage? A incompetent reviewer might give a bad paper very high score whereas a competent reviewer might give a good paper average score.
I never understood the logic peer reviewed conferences. For example take 2 top conferences in any sub field of ML, now why are these 2 conferences top conferences? Do they become top conferences just by limiting the number of papers they accept? The people who review for these conferences are also the same so what makes them different. Also the capabilities of each reviewer are different so how are scores from each reviewer given the same weightage? A incompetent reviewer might give a bad paper very high score whereas a competent reviewer might give a good paper average score.