What do reviewers actually mean when they say the paper sound more like a technical report? [D]

Reddit r/MachineLearning / 4/28/2026

💬 OpinionIdeas & Deep Analysis

共有:

Key Points

The author describes receiving a rejection from a workshop and being told by both reviewers that the submission reads more like a technical report than a research paper.
The post asks the community what common mistakes or shortcomings cause a paper to come across as a technical report rather than original research.
It notes the author followed a standard computer vision paper format, suggesting the issue may be about the paper’s substance or presentation rather than structure alone.
The underlying goal is to clarify reviewer expectations for what constitutes “research” contributions versus merely documenting methods or systems.

Hello,

I recently got my paper rejected from a workshop (big womp :'( ) .

Both reviewers said the paper sounds more like a technical report than a research paper.
I followed the usual computer vision format for papers so I'm a bit confused by what that might actually mean.

I would therefore like to hear the community's opinion on what faux pas make a paper read as technical report.

Thank you

submitted by /u/obliviousphoenix2003
[link] [comments]