feedback
feedback on Beyond Market Intelligence: a running collection of 12 stories we have gathered and hand-picked because they are worth your time. Every post here touches on feedback in some way — the news, the analysis, the deep dives, and the occasional surprise find. Acme AI is the next-generation, AI-powered spreadsheet platform built to replace Excel and redefine how analysts, data scientists, and enterprise teams work with data. New stories are added to this page as we find them, so check back if you want to keep up with what is happening around feedback, or subscribe to the RSS feed to get them as soon as they are published. Browse the collection below, or head back to the homepage to see everything Beyond Market Intelligence is covering right now.
I regret reviewing for AAAI [D]
Reviewing for prestigious conferences like AAAI can feel like a significant time investment, particularly when reciprocity isn’t guaranteed. A recent Reddit post articulated a common sentiment: the allure of feeling valued can outweigh the practical realities of dedicating time to evaluating work that doesn’t directly benefit one's own submissions.
ACML 2026 Journal Track Any update ?[D]
Submitting to ACM’s 2026 Journal Track can be a pivotal step in research dissemination. Many researchers, like /u/Jealous_Key_4030, are awaiting review decisions—the official release date was August 27th, and timely feedback is crucial. If you've received your review, please share your experience to help others. Delays can be frustrating, so reaching out to the program chairs is a proactive approach. For further insights into presenting machine learning work, consider "Good Machine Learning Posters," a related discussion exploring effective poster design.
How much does adding an honest limitations section hurt the paper? [D]
Addressing limitations honestly in research papers—while generally beneficial—raises critical questions about reviewer bias and potential requests for remediation. Does openly acknowledging constraints negatively impact perception, or will reviewers demand fixes outlined in the limitations section? Furthermore, the introduction of AI reviewers introduces a novel consideration: could these limitations inadvertently bias algorithmic assessment? Exploring these nuances, as discussed in "My Model Was Cheating on Its Own Test," highlights the complexities of transparency in AI research.
For the people who got reviews back from neurips, cvpr, eccv, etc and also tested their paper through an agentic reviewer like the stanford one, how different were the reviews? [D]
For those who recently received reviews from NeurIPS, CVPR, ECCV, or similar conferences, and also utilized agentic reviewer tools like the Stanford model, a compelling question arises: how do the reviews compare? We're exploring the divergence between human and LLM assessments, seeking insights into this evolving landscape. Early indications suggest significant variations, prompting a deeper understanding of how AI-assisted review impacts the peer review process. For further context on related challenges, see our article, "My Model Was Cheating on Its Own Test."
Would you choose a PhD advisor who gives you complete freedom but almost no guidance? [D]
Navigating the landscape of PhD advisors presents a critical decision. Consider this scenario: a fully funded ML PhD with a senior, respected advisor offering near-complete freedom—choose your topics, projects, and collaborations with minimal oversight. However, this autonomy comes at a cost: limited guidance or technical input. Is this a dream setup prioritizing independence, or a dealbreaker due to the lack of mentorship?
Do ACs also give scores? [D]
Navigating NeurIPS submissions can be confusing, especially for first-timers. Many authors wonder if Area Chairs (ACs) provide scores during Phase 2, the author-reviewer discussion. While you've received your meta-review, the absence of direct AC comments is a common query. It’s standard for ACs to remain largely silent during this phase, focusing on guiding the discussion. For more on navigating conference commitments, see our article, "Missed EMNLP commitment deadline, what can be done?". Focus on addressing reviewer concerns and refining your paper.
No rebuttals from neurips authors [D]
Many NeurIPS authors are experiencing frustration with a lack of reviewer responses, a sentiment echoed in recent discussions. It appears the absence of author rebuttals is surprisingly common; a significant number of submissions, including borderline papers with positive Area Chair feedback, haven't received them. This leaves authors understandably perplexed. While challenging, this situation highlights a broader issue within the peer review process. For deeper insights into related concerns, explore our article, "neurips 2026: ACs and reviewers have disappeared."
Bad but typical NeurIPS experience? [D]
The NeurIPS review process, as highlighted by one researcher's experience, can be a frustrating lottery. Despite conscientious reviewing and generous scoring, unexpectedly harsh reviews and unresponsive area chairs created a deeply discouraging experience. Adversarial reviewer feedback, coupled with a late-stage AC response, underscored the system’s inherent unpredictability and potential toxicity. This highlights a broader issue within the AI research community, prompting discussions around reviewer accountability—as explored in articles like "NeurIPS 2026: If the rebuttal addresses your concern, please raise your score."
ARR May Meta Review[D]
Recent discussions reveal a concerning trend: a significant number of authors are experiencing a lack of engagement with ARR May meta reviews. Reports indicate submissions, including rebuttals, are going unacknowledged, raising questions about reviewer participation. This issue, highlighted by /u/Historical_Pause247, impacts authors navigating conference commitments, such as the decision between EMNLP and AACL, as explored in a related article. We encourage community discussion to understand the scope and potential solutions to this challenge.
No replies to rebuttals and comments even by AC [D]
A concerning trend has emerged: many submissions are experiencing a complete lack of response to submitted rebuttals, even from Area Chairs. This situation, where feedback isn't addressed during the designated discussion period, undermines the review process. While frustrating, it’s crucial to acknowledge this systemic issue. Our community is actively documenting these challenges – see, for example, "No rebuttals from Neurips authors [D]" for broader coverage. Explore alternative strategies for ensuring your work receives due consideration despite these obstacles.
Neurips Position Track Rebuttal and Reviews [R]
Navigating the NeurIPS Position Track rebuttal process can feel unclear, especially for first-time conference paper submitters. Receiving a 3/3/5/7 alongside reviews with actionable feedback suggests a promising opportunity for revision. The rebuttal phase allows you to directly address reviewer concerns; the Area Chair (AC) will evaluate these rebuttals alongside the original reviews to determine if your revisions adequately address the feedback. Consider referencing "Link plots/figures in NeurIPS rebuttal [R]" for practical guidance on presenting supplementary data effectively.
Vibe-coded a tool to ELI5 research papers in-place [P]
Navigating complex research papers can be surprisingly inefficient. That's why we're sharing Vibe-coded, a new tool designed to streamline your understanding. Simply select a passage, formula, or citation within a paper, and Vibe-coded will provide an accessible explanation, leveraging the full context of the document. Built on Vercel and Supabase, and informed by models like Claude, this tool aims to eliminate the need for constant copy-pasting and context switching. For a deeper dive into related AI techniques, explore our tutorial on building an AI-text detector.