Conference Reviews: Asking Too Much? [D]

The recent Reddit thread questioning the scope of conference review requests, and the potential impact on subsequent journal publication, highlights a persistent tension within the academic AI research lifecycle. /u/examachine’s experience – having to retract a paper to avoid blocking a journal submission – resonates with many researchers navigating the conference-to-journal transition. The core issue isn't simply about adding content; it’s about whether the demands of a conference review process, particularly at top-tier venues, are inadvertently pushing work toward a form that’s less suitable for the more rigorous and expansive requirements of a journal. This echoes concerns previously raised about the responsiveness of reviewers, as seen in articles like [No replies to rebuttals and comments even by AC [D]] and [No rebuttals from neurips authors [D]], suggesting a broader disconnect between the reviewer and author experience. It’s a delicate balance – conferences incentivize rapid dissemination and innovation, while journals prioritize depth and comprehensive validation.

The inherent difference in format and expectations between conferences and journals contributes to this problem. Conference proceedings typically have strict page limits, forcing authors to prioritize the core contribution and often relegating supplementary material to appendices. Reviewers, recognizing this constraint, may still suggest expansions that, while valuable, push the paper beyond its intended scope for a conference. These additions, while potentially strengthening the work, might be better suited for a more in-depth exploration within a journal article. The choice then becomes whether to comply with the conference review, potentially sacrificing a smoother transition to journal publication, or to resist, risking a negative review. The question of whether metareviews already contain recommendations, as discussed in [Neurips 2026: does every metareview recommend accept/reject? [D]], further complicates the process, potentially influencing reviewer expectations and the pressure to incorporate extensive additions.

This situation speaks to a deeper need for clearer communication and alignment between conference and journal expectations. Perhaps conference committees could explicitly acknowledge this potential conflict, encouraging reviewers to prioritize core contributions within the page limit and to suggest supplemental material as a distinct pathway for further exploration. Journals, conversely, could be more receptive to incorporating well-documented supplementary materials from conference publications, recognizing that the initial dissemination through a conference served a valuable purpose. A more symbiotic relationship, where conferences facilitate rapid iteration and journals provide the space for comprehensive validation, would benefit the entire research community. The current system can inadvertently create a bottleneck, forcing researchers to make difficult choices about where and how to publish their work.

Ultimately, this discussion prompts a critical question: are we, as a community, adequately supporting researchers navigating the complex publication landscape? The rise of pre-print servers and alternative publishing models suggests a growing dissatisfaction with traditional gatekeepers, but the conference-to-journal pathway remains a significant hurdle. Moving forward, it will be essential to develop more transparent and collaborative processes that value both the speed of innovation and the rigor of scholarly validation, ensuring that valuable research isn't lost in the shuffle between venues.