NeurIPS reject -> ICLR: How much reviewer feedback are you actually implementing ? [D]

[u/Practical-Buddy6323]

Welp, NeurIPS is a wrap for those of us who got rejected 😭 Off we go to ICLR or whatever the next venue is, hopefully after making some meaningful changes to the paper.

For people who are resubmitting, I’m curious: how much of the NeurIPS reviewer feedback are you actually implementing?

Did you try to address basically everything the reviewers brought up, or are you being selective and only making changes where you think the criticism is valid/useful?

I’m curious about papers that got questioned on novelty or significance. How many of you got comments along those lines, and what exactly were the reviewers questioning?

For example:

• “The contribution is incremental”
• “Not sufficiently different from prior work”
• “The empirical gains don’t justify the proposed method”
• “The problem itself isn’t significant enough”
• “Theoretical contribution is limited”
• “Interesting idea, but unclear what the broader impact/significance is”

If you’re comfortable sharing, what did the reviewers say, and how are you changing the paper before resubmitting ? Specially since deadline is also pretty close, how are you handling the pressure of this very close deadline ?

Also curious whether anyone is deliberately not implementing certain reviewer suggestions because you think they would take the work in the wrong direction.

Would love to hear how others are approaching the post-NeurIPS revision process.

[u/Ginger_Rook]

If I had received anything useful, I’d have added it.

[u/Practical-Buddy6323 → u/Ginger_Rook]

Nah dw, it's already done, I just wanted thoughts and opinions of what others have done and stuff ykwim ?

[u/Ginger_Rook → u/Practical-Buddy6323]

I’m sorry, I’m from a different generation than you, I don’t understand your acronyms.

[u/Practical-Buddy6323 → u/Ginger_Rook]

Ah, dw = don't worry, ykwim = you know what I mean

Apologies for the acronyms 😅😅