review process

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.

Reviewing 4 papers for AAAI 2027 and none have code, Reject? [D]

Reviewing submissions for AAAI 2027 presents a recurring challenge: empirical claims lacking supporting code or data. While a complete absence of reproducibility materials shouldn't trigger an automatic rejection—legitimate concerns around funding and intellectual property exist—it significantly impacts reviewer confidence. Flagging this explicitly in the review, requesting anonymized code during the rebuttal phase, is a pragmatic approach. As explored in "Millwright — experimenting with an end-to-end machine learning framework in Rust," ensuring verifiable results remains paramount for robust AI research.

AAAI 2027 Reviewer Bidding and Assignment Integrity [D]

Recent concerns regarding reviewer collusion at AAAI 2027, particularly within two-cycle review assignments, highlight a critical challenge in maintaining research integrity. The prevalence of submissions from a single geographic region increases the likelihood of these problematic pairings, potentially enabling unethical behavior.

AC comment and our reply disappeared on OpenReview [D]

A concerning issue has emerged on OpenReview: several users report that an AC's initial comment and the author's subsequent reply have vanished. This comment, crucial for understanding reviewer feedback and addressing concerns, summarized key questions and weaknesses. The disappearance raises questions about transparency, particularly if it obscures the rationale behind potential rejection decisions. We've encountered similar discussions around data management challenges, as explored in our article, "A Day in the Life of a Data Scientist in 2026."

Neurips 2026: Modified date on reviews [D]

AAAI 2027 Review: No code submission? [D]

AAAI 2027 paper reviews have revealed a concerning trend: a surprisingly low number of submissions include accompanying code. This deviates from AAAI's explicit emphasis on reproducibility and raises questions about the rigor of some submissions. While initial scoring will reflect this omission, we seek community input. Providing code fosters transparency and allows for validation – a practice we strongly advocate, as evidenced by our own consistent code sharing on ArXiv.

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.

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.

It's time to desk reject papers that don't include code that can reproduce the results [D]

A concerning trend is emerging from recent conference review seasons: a significant lack of reproducible code accompanying submitted papers. Across 12 reviews this year, only one provided complete, runnable code, while seven offered none at all. This severely impacts quality assurance and reproducibility, with even partial code often containing critical bugs. Incentives currently favor code concealment, but a shift towards penalties for non-disclosure is needed to ensure rigorous scientific standards.

NeurIPS 2026: If the rebuttal addresses your concern, please raise your score [D]

A persistent challenge within the NeurIPS community involves reviewer scoring discrepancies: concerns adequately addressed in rebuttals are not always reflected in adjusted scores. We urge reviewers to align scores with the resolution of stated concerns, regardless of personal methodological preferences. Scientific exploration thrives on diverse perspectives, and valuing rigorous responses strengthens the peer-review process. As explored in "Coding Agents Don’t Need Bigger Context Windows — They Need a Context Compiler," a focus on efficient context management is key to progress.

Conference Reviews: Asking Too Much? [D]

Conference reviews sometimes request additions that extend beyond a paper's page limit, a practice particularly prevalent at top-tier events. While these expansions can be valuable, they often better suit journal publication—a concern that recently led one author to retract a submission. Does this approach inadvertently hinder future journal opportunities? We invite discussion on whether such additions are a conference review quirk or a sign of a broader disconnect.

Neurips 2026 Main Track Theory Paper Tracker- Discussion Thread [D]

Navigating NeurIPS 2026 Main Track Theory paper reviews? This discussion thread explores initial review distributions, a topic often generating questions. One submitter reports a 4/3/3 score with corresponding confidence, noting a historical tendency for theory papers to receive more conservative initial evaluations. Given broader reports of potentially lower scores this cycle, the thread invites fellow theory paper authors to share their experiences—scores and confidence levels—to identify potential patterns. For further context on the review process, see our related article on "Editing NeurIPS Rebuttals."

Editing Neurips Rebuttal [D]

Regarding NeurIPS rebuttal edits, a clarification is emerging. The post-rebuttal button will transition to an “official comment” status on July 27th AoE. While we anticipate you'll retain the ability to edit your rebuttal after this change, we advise monitoring closely. For a deeper understanding of the NeurIPS meta-reviewer response process, explore our article, "How exactly does the NeurIPS meta reviewer response work?". Stay informed as these crucial deadlines approach.

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.

How exactly does the NeurIPS meta reviewer response work? [D]

Navigating NeurIPS meta-reviewer responses can be complex, especially with recent updates. Initially, authors were directed to AC confidential comments, but a recent announcement now requires posting answers to initial meta-reviews as comments on the July 28th thread by August 3rd – a shift designed for reviewer visibility. Clarifying whether this new option opens immediately, as the rebuttal period concludes, is crucial. Essentially, the process seems to demand public posting for reviewer access, rather than private AC updates.

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.

ARR 2026 Meta Review score [D]

Concerns are circulating regarding the accuracy and consistency of ARR 2026 Meta Review scores, specifically around scores of 2.66 and subsequent rounding. A user has raised concerns about potential “uninterested reviewers” and AI-generated assessments impacting overall scores. This highlights a critical need for review quality assurance within the process. Explore our analysis of upcoming NeurIPS reviews, as detailed in "NeurIPS reviews coming in soon! [D]," for further insights into the broader review landscape and potential contributing factors.

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.