This is a story of how our life through the peer reviewing process goes in the ML community.
First, we usually start looking for ideas to do new research on, and more often that not, I'm like this:
Then, I start reading papers on the topic, and find out a lot of papers like:
Then, I finally send a paper to a journal or conference to be peer reviewed and I find different types of reviewers:
The grammar defender, who will punish every little grammar mistake and recommend you have your paper checked by the editors of the The New Yorker.
The organizer who want's to increase the perceived quality of the journal/conference by being overly strict when doing reviews.
The guy who knows nothing of your topic, but still, looks at the comparison tables with other works and asks:
The author of one of the papers you cite, who thinks no one but him/her has more authority on the topic:
But some times, you find someone who gives you some expectation that this area may become better overtime:
So, keep submitting so you are lucky enough the three reviewers of your paper are like the last guy.