But they also weren't treating it like a normal paper, and the lack of peer review is part of that.
More importantly, that being the big example, decades later, helps show just how rare something like that is for major conferences and journals.
An estimate of it happening 1% of the time would be much too high, but even if 1% was accurate it would still mean that endorsements are quite convincing.
But they also weren't treating it like a normal paper, and the lack of peer review is part of that.
More importantly, that being the big example, decades later, helps show just how rare something like that is for major conferences and journals.
An estimate of it happening 1% of the time would be much too high, but even if 1% was accurate it would still mean that endorsements are quite convincing.
Let alone getting picked as the "best paper".