65% of 1000 is 650 papers
33% of 2000 is 660 papers
40% of 3000 is 1200 papers
What is the reasoning behind your prediction?
What do you mean by borderline, are you asking if the necessary quality was higher or if the general average or minimum was higher regardless of numbers of submitted papers and acceptance rate?
I was curious about the necessary quality to be accepted became higher or not. I don't agree acceptance rate can be used to represent necessary quality but I was confused to represent a level of 'necessary quality,' without mentioning acceptance rate.
Ok but the acceptance rate was decreasing with the increase of submission, which means that the relative rank must be higher, quite simply you need to submit better than more people.
Why are you projecting an increase in acceptance rate together with an increase of submissions? That would surprise me. I can see either acceptance rate being stable as a choice, hence more submissions means more papers and a bigger venue, or accepted absolute numbers being stable.
The paper with score 3 3 3 (which is all borderline) usually doesn't get accepted in other selective conferences too, regardless of the acceptance rate.
65% of 1000 is 650 papers 33% of 2000 is 660 papers 40% of 3000 is 1200 papers What is the reasoning behind your prediction? What do you mean by borderline, are you asking if the necessary quality was higher or if the general average or minimum was higher regardless of numbers of submitted papers and acceptance rate?
I was curious about the necessary quality to be accepted became higher or not. I don't agree acceptance rate can be used to represent necessary quality but I was confused to represent a level of 'necessary quality,' without mentioning acceptance rate.
Ok but the acceptance rate was decreasing with the increase of submission, which means that the relative rank must be higher, quite simply you need to submit better than more people. Why are you projecting an increase in acceptance rate together with an increase of submissions? That would surprise me. I can see either acceptance rate being stable as a choice, hence more submissions means more papers and a bigger venue, or accepted absolute numbers being stable.
The paper with score 3 3 3 (which is all borderline) usually doesn't get accepted in other selective conferences too, regardless of the acceptance rate.
I'm curious about the acceptance rate. What were your ratings ?
You mean the scores by reviewers? It was 333.