paper submission
paper submission 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 paper submission 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 paper submission, 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.
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.
Epistemic Intelligence in Machine Learning Neurips Workshop page limit? [D]
Submitting to the 3rd Workshop on Epistemic Intelligence in Machine Learning at Neurips requires careful preparation. While the organizers have yet to confirm a specific page limit, historical precedent suggests two likely scenarios: either mirroring the ICML workshop's 6-page limit or aligning with the main Neurips conference’s 9-page constraint. To ensure your paper meets submission guidelines, we recommend erring on the side of brevity. For further exploration of related topics, consider our recent analysis of EMNLP 26 cost considerations.
NeurIPS 2026 Author Notifications Close to ICLR Deadline [D]
NeurIPS 2026 author notification deadlines—September 24th—are fast approaching, coinciding closely with the ICLR submission deadline. A common concern arises: are extended Area Chair and reviewer discussion phases typical? Many authors report frustration when rebuttals go unaddressed. Given this timing, researchers are strategically evaluating ICLR submissions as a contingency. As one example, our recent article, "Mathematical Experiments Are Becoming Abundant Through Human-Machine Teaming," explores related challenges in rigorous experimentation. Good luck navigating these crucial deadlines!
NeurIPS 2026 Main Track — Theory papers score tracking post Rebuttal [D]
Following the NeurIPS 2026 rebuttal period, a discussion has emerged regarding Theory paper score distributions. Early reports suggest scores may be trending lower across disciplines this year. To facilitate a clearer understanding of the landscape, authors are invited to share their scores (x/x/x), confidence levels (x/x/x), and whether scores shifted post-rebuttal, optionally specifying the broad area of research. One author reported a 4/4/4 score with 3/3/3 confidence.
Completely dead NeurIPS review period from both ends? [D]
A concerning trend has emerged during the NeurIPS review period: unusually prolonged silence from both reviewers and authors. Reports indicate reviewers abandoning the process post-initial reviews, while authors remain unresponsive even without submitting rebuttals. This phenomenon, observed across multiple submissions, raises questions about shifts in academic publishing practices—potentially a strategy of widespread submission with limited follow-through. As noted in a related discussion on score tracking post-rebuttal for theory papers, NeurIPS 2026, maintaining engagement throughout the review cycle remains crucial.
Missed EMNLP commitment deadline, what can be done? [D]
Facing a missed EMNLP commitment deadline after a positive ARR review can be frustrating. Many researchers encounter deadline complexities with OpenReview systems, as highlighted in discussions around ICLR and NeurIPS. While responsibility rests with the submitter, the sudden shift in deadlines warrants immediate communication with the Program and Workflow Chairs. Given the anticipated volume of submissions, explore all avenues for recourse, emphasizing the circumstances. Prompt action, as you've already taken, demonstrates a commitment to the process.
NeurIPS 2026: Tips that might convince AC? [D]
Navigating NeurIPS acceptance with initially positive reviews, followed by a score decrease despite addressing reviewer concerns, can be frustrating. Authors facing similar scenarios—particularly those with average reviewer scores around 3.5—often find the Area Chair (AC) plays a crucial role in final decisions. Focus your efforts on a compelling meta-review response, clearly articulating how your revisions mitigate identified weaknesses. While AC engagement can vary, proactive communication highlighting your responsiveness is key.
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."
EMNLP vs AACL commitment: Meta 3.5, reviews 3/3/4, what to do?[D]
Navigating conference commitment decisions can be complex, especially as a first-time solo author. Given your strong reviews—averaging 3/3/4 with a 3.5 meta—both EMNLP and AACL present viable options. Currently, EMNLP generally holds a slightly higher prestige ranking. Considering the meta-review's emphasis on empirical rigor and practical value, alongside the noted concern about presentation, we estimate a reasonable chance for EMNLP Main, though Findings remains a possibility.
Happy openreview refresh day to all those who celebrate [D]
Happy refresh day to the [D] community—may the odds be ever in your favor! As a NeurIPS Area Chair, this year's incentive structure appears to be yielding positive results, significantly reducing the need for reviewer follow-up. This marks a notable improvement over the past five years of Area Chair experience. Let's hope for active participation in discussions as well. For further context on the broader AI landscape and the challenges it presents, explore our interview with the Substack CEO on "The AI Slop Problem."
ACL ARR (May 2026)- Updating Reviewer Score post 17 July AoE Deadline? [D]
Following the ACL ARR (May 2026) cycle, authors are understandably seeking clarity regarding reviewer score updates post the July 17th AoE deadline. A community discussion highlights concerns about reviewer engagement during rebuttal phases, prompting questions about the continued ability to modify ratings and participate in meta-reviewer discussions. If you volunteered as a reviewer and are unsure of your options, explore the system’s current functionality.
TACL journal doubts [D]
Navigating the TACL review process can understandably generate questions. Submitting around June 1st for the July cycle suggests reviews may arrive within the subsequent weeks, though timelines can vary. Historically, the full TACL publication process takes several months. TACL holds considerable respect within the NLP community, viewed as a strong venue for impactful research. Its reputation reflects a rigorous review process and high publication standards. For those exploring related avenues, consider reviewing discussions around short-paper submissions at ACL/EMNLP/EACL, as detailed in a recent article.