Reviewer has chosen not to be Anonymous

Overall Impression: Average

Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Average
Originality of the paper: Yes, but limited
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes

Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Needs improvement
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Average

Detailed Comments:

This is a type of meta-review, as there was some confusion about the type of paper. It in fact is supposed to be a position paper for the inaugural issue.

I have communicated with the reviewers, and while their reviews haven't been updated, the result of the discussion was that even as a position paper, the paper needs improvements to strengthen the qualitative arguments.

Reviewer has chosen to be Anonymous

Overall Impression: Weak

Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Don't know
Originality of the paper: No
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes

Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Limited
Organization of the paper: Needs improvement
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Weak

Detailed Comments:

The main objective of the paper is to conduct a critical review of the misunderstandings about the usage of logic in neurosymbolic systems. As such, this cannot be categorized as a research paper but as an overview paper. The core of the paper consists of quotes from posts that appeared on social media by relatively notable researchers. They do not constitute well-developed and scientific arguments. Thus, I am not convinced that reactions to them should be included in an article of a scientific (peer-reviewed) venue. They also cannot constitute representative data for a community since the number of posts considered by the authors is too few. Additionally, the counterarguments proposed by the author are not clearly explained, and I am not fully convinced by them. I think that the paper is more appropriate for a personal blog or an open discussion forum rather than a scientific paper. In general, I believe that a better way to rebut misunderstandings about a scientific methodology is to produce scientific results that clarify such misunderstandings. Also, referencing social media posts in an archival paper is not a good practice as they might not be available in the future.

Reviewer has chosen to be Anonymous

Overall Impression: Weak

Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Weak
Originality of the paper: No
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes

Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Needs improvement
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Weak

Detailed Comments:

The scope and intended goal of this paper is very relevant. But the intended target is not clear. this paper seems more a collection of blog posts / unproved statements than a scientific paper. But maybe this is not intended to be a scientific paper? This would be justified by the title. What "misunderstanding in the social media" has to do with the underlying science?

What is usefulness of the notion of "thinintelligence"? Like other notions occurring in the rest of the paper, this term is associated to a lot of trivial , and sometimes ill-defined notions.

And what about the promise of neuro-symbolic reasoning? Which promise? The author just quickly lists a bunch of citations. But could he give us a concrete example where Logic (+ML) could help solving in a problem that could NOT be solved by the SoA in ML. Something going beyond the usual arguments that we have heard many times (e.g., lack of explainability, the lack of semantics).

This kind of problems apply pretty much to all sections of the paper. One last observation is on the use of the term "metalogic". From what he writes I doubt that the reader knows what a metalogic is. Or even what a metatheory is.

This paper must be completely rewritten to be publishable. The reason why I am suggesting resubmission is the relevance and timeliness of the topic. And I do hope that the author works on this. Next time providing a better written, more convincing argumentation.