March 9, 2026
Peer review vs peer pressure
An opinionated take on how to do important research that matters
Genius, luck, or connections? Internet fights over what really wins “best paper”
TLDR: Nicholas Carlini shared how he picks problems and collaborators after winning a Best Paper at EuroCrypt. Commenters split: some praise the advice, others argue awards reflect resources and niche politics, not impact, while newcomers welcomed explainers on CS's conference-first culture—fueling a bigger question about what truly matters.
Security researcher Nicholas Carlini just dropped an opinionated guide to doing research that actually matters—fresh off winning a Best Paper at EuroCrypt for a model stealing paper co-authored with Adi Shamir and crew. He swears by “good taste” in picking problems, great collaborators, and clear writing, while admitting a dash of luck. But the comments? Oh, they had thoughts—and they did not hold back.
The hottest debate: taste vs. access. One camp cheered the advice as a blueprint; another said, bluntly, awards track resources, networks, and prestige, not pure brilliance. User yodsanklai poked the bear, arguing the title “How to win a best paper award” is not the same as “doing work that matters,” and that niche fields hand each other trophies that don’t always translate to real-world impact. Meanwhile, Xcelerate lit up the thread with a spicy reminder that getting into the room—labs, compute, mentors—is half the game. As a palate cleanser, rakovsky89 summoned the classic talk “You and Your Research”, basically the community’s motivational meme. And for confused readers, nxobject explained that in computer science, conferences are the main way papers ship, not journals. The vibe swung between “exceptional read!”, “awards ≠ impact,” and jokes about “best paper vs. best PR.” Drama level: academic tea, served hot with extra citations.
Key Points
- •Nicholas Carlini wrote an opinionated guide to doing impactful research and writing award-winning papers.
- •The article was prompted by his best paper award for a model stealing paper co-authored with Jorge Chávez-Saab, Anna Hambitzer, Francisco Rodríguez-Henríquez, and Adi Shamir.
- •He outlines four sections: choosing research ideas, doing technical research, writing clearly, and post-publication considerations.
- •Carlini emphasizes developing good problem-selection “taste” through practice and focusing on what works and what doesn’t.
- •He highlights the importance of strong collaborators to catch errors, challenge weak ideas, and complement skills.