submission
submission on Beyond Market Intelligence: a running collection of 38 stories we have gathered and hand-picked because they are worth your time. Every post here touches on 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 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.
EMNLP Commitment Submission number [D]
EMNLP Submission [D] from /u/Huge_Argument_6979 presents a commitment focused on exploring the scale of commitments within the conference. With an estimated 4,000 submissions, this initiative seeks to understand the breadth of projects and contributions. It’s a valuable opportunity to assess the community's engagement and the diverse directions of AI-native spreadsheet technology. For those interested in sharing their own projects and initiatives, see the related "Self-Promotion Thread [D]" for a dedicated space to connect and collaborate.
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.
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: ACs and reviewers have disappeared [D]
NeurIPS 2026 reviewers and Area Chairs have inexplicably vanished, leaving several submitters in a state of uncertainty. Early rebuttal submissions, made via the designated "Rebuttal" button before the official discussion period opened, appear to have triggered no notifications, a problem also experienced by reviewers. Despite attempts to utilize meta-comments, reminders, and direct PC contact, responses remain absent with only one day left in the review cycle. This situation, impacting potential oral and spotlight candidates, highlights a systemic issue.
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 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.
Link plots/figures in NeurIPS rebuttal [R]
Reviewers at NeurIPS requested additional experiments best visualized through plots and figures, a format often more digestible than tabular data. While OpenReview’s technical guidelines restrict external links, experienced submitters sometimes leverage this for clarity. Proceeding cautiously is advised; a minor infraction is more likely than outright rejection, though outcomes vary. Consider the DONUT text extraction model, as discussed in a related article, for inspiration on effectively presenting complex data. Ultimately, advocate for OpenReview’s adoption of modern markdown to support figure embeds directly.
NeurIPS 2026 reviews exact timing[D]
The anticipation surrounding NeurIPS 2026 review release dates is understandably high. Many researchers find themselves frequently checking OpenReview, as highlighted by /u/Anshuman3480. While exact timing remains unconfirmed, historical patterns suggest a phased release, typically beginning mid-November. We understand the stress of waiting; staying informed is key. For those tracking submission numbers more broadly, our recent article on "Number of Submissions @ AAAI" offers related insights into the conference timeline. We’ll update this space as official announcements become available.
Number of Submissions @ AAAI [D]
The AAAI submission window has closed, with submission number 32xxx recently logged – a reminder of the intense competition within the field. A key question remains: how can we foster greater transparency in the peer review process, particularly for withdrawn or rejected papers? Increased accountability through public reviews would benefit the entire AI research community. For those exploring submission strategies within AI alignment, our recent article, "AAAI 27 AI Alignment track [D]," offers valuable guidance.
AAAI 27 AI Alignment track [D]
Navigating the AI Alignment track at AAAI 27 can feel opaque. Submission details for track [D] appear exclusively on OpenReview, accessible here: [link]. This track, alongside the Artificial Intelligence for Social Impact, Conference, and Innovative Applications of AI tracks, represents a crucial intersection of research and real-world impact. Understanding the submission process is key to contributing to this vital area. For deeper insight into the evolving landscape of AI progress, explore our analysis of the recent DeepMind/Kaggle challenge, "Measuring Progress Toward AGI – Cognitive Abilities."
short-paper at ACL/EMNLP/EACL [R]
Navigating the short-paper submission process for ACL/EMNLP/EACL can be challenging. Acceptance rates for these concise submissions often lag behind those of full-length papers, and understanding the landscape is key. We're seeking insights from anyone who has successfully had a short-paper accepted to these prestigious conferences in 2025 or 2026. Sharing your track and overall assessment would be invaluable. Recent developments, like those detailed in "Prism accidentally leaked," highlight the complexities of the AI research pipeline.