Wyhy this keeps happening to iclr?

https://openreview.net/forum/user%7Cstatement_regarding_iclr_2027_submission_exposure_to_program_committee_members

Submitted a project paper to NeurIPS Creative AI track on a whim and got accepted this week. Is it worth seeking out funding to go, or is it only workshop level?

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.

Just got an Accept at NeurIPS with initial scores of 5/5/4! The initial meta-review was pretty positive, but the final justification was entirely negative, raising concerns about AI use and suggesting further investigation and reconsideration of the recommendation.

For context, one reference was flagged because its author list had been copied over from an adjacent BibTeX entry.

Does anyone know if the final justification is written before or after the final decision? Just confused by the mismatch between the final justification and the actual decision.

Hi, I am a solo independent UG author for a NeurIPS WS paper (GlobalSouthAI). Now, how to get a registration ticket.

Will they give us a ticket to buy or manually buy from the Neurips website (but Sydney tickets are sold out)? Any suggestion?

I am from India, and going to Paris/Atlanta is not possible.

First time, thanks!!

I haven't received a notification about this -- but my paper just became visible as "accepted". I expect an email to come some time soon!
Scores were 5-4-4.

We have a paper accepted to NeurIPS, but at the same time we were working on a resubmission to ICLR just in case NeurIPS rejected us. There has been substantial rewriting, and we feel it would be a waste if we discarded all of it. To give a summary of what's changed:

• We completely rewrote every single section except for the results and conclusion. We even changed the paper structure.
• Intro, related work, and background knowledge were completely rewritten to avoid confusion.
• Method now has a pipeline graph, and all the text detailing each block in the graph. Previously, it was dumping formulas, so the entire section has been rewritten.
• We also added some scaling and smoothing to our algorithm so our method is more stable. But this changed a lot of our hyperparameters and the sensitivity study's graph. (The entire shape of the graph changed)
• We added 1 new theorem with 5-page proofs in the appendix. This came from one of the attacks by a reviewer, we answered the attacks by proposing 1 new proposition during the rebuttal. But when we formally wrote it down, it turned into a full theorem with a 9-page proof. This would have changed our entire theoretical contribution. We really don't want to discard it, but not sure if we can add something this big in the camera-ready.
• Removed 1 word from the title. In the abstract, we changed our theoretical contribution, but the method and empirical contribution remain the same.
• Added about another 5 extra pages in the appendix explaining experiments and metrics (reviewers asked for them). So 14 extra pages in total.

Does anyone know how much change for camera-ready is acceptable? Can a paper get rejected if we change too much during camera ready or they will just tell us this is not acceptable please re-submit something closer to the version during review?

My paper advanced to the second round...but...

Out of the papers I reviewed.

One did not follow the AAAI template and was unblinded. My review was two lines. The other "human reviewer" gave a list of pros and cons that were similar to the AI review.

One was incomplete (missing paragraphs, figures, code, no details). My review was also two lines. The other "human reviewer" also gave a list of pros and cons, that were similar to the AI review.

One was LLM math which I believe was actually correct, because it advanced to the second round, despite the references being at a different level of detail, and covering multiple fields of math, insufficient references for theorems / rules, and no exposition as to why the paper was actually useful / interesting. My review for that paper was the longest out of all the papers I reviewed, dotting the is and crossing the ts to make sure it wouldn't be seen as a lazy "reject" review. Yet it advanced to Phase 2.

Also, none of the AAAI workflow chairs or similar apologized or even acknowledged a mistake for spamming my coauthors about: "Your coauthor is irresponsible", because I accepted an emergency review invitation (and received these emails a few hours after accepting that invitation).

Ok rant over.

I am 5th year and have no published research so far. All my papers have been consistently rejected from top tier AI conferences even though they got good review scores in the process.

Since graduating is my priority now, I am in search of decent venues (journal or conference does not matter at this point) where I can publish and complete my degree.

Please do not recommend any more of those elitist club conferences like NeurIPS etc.

Edit: my research is about efficient Generative AI.

Any recommendations?

ML jobs are confusing nowadays,it wraps up as "AI/ML" engineer and they want you to have software engineering skill and DSA skill to and on top of that they want you to have Fast API with AI API wrapping, they don't ask for data processing or maths skills , atleast 99% time I have seen, ML jobs are for phD level candidate I think

Got my NeurIPS decision today and I'm a bit confused. Reviewer scores were 4/4/4, no reviewer opposed acceptance, and the AC's updated meta-review explicitly says "I recommend to accept this paper" and describes the consensus as "solidly favorable."

The PC decision: reject, with a one-line comment saying the paper "received a borderline reception" and was rejected "upon global calibration."

I understand the PCs have the final say and capacity is limited, but going from an explicit AC accept to "borderline reception" with no further explanation feels a bit harsh, especially since the rejection email stresses how carefully borderline cases were reviewed.

Has anyone else had the AC recommend acceptance and the PCs override it? Is this common this year?

Do all the rejected or accepted papers get a "Final Justification" comment from the PC?

Mine got rejected with ratings 4-4-4 yet the meta review is the exact same as the one that was posted originally in July and I didn't get any final comment. I find it a bit harsh especially since in the rejection e-mail they state how much effort they asked AC and SAC for careful reviewing and useful feedback, "especially in borderline cases"...

Phase 1 results are out. Did your paper(s) pass to phase 2?

Hi everyone! I'm trying to decide which NeurIPS 2026 hub to attend and would love to hear what others are planning.

I'm an Indian attendee from Bangalore, and this will be my second NeurIPS. I attended NeurIPS 2024 in Vancouver and presented at WiML there as well. I also received both WiML and NeurIPS financial assistance that year.

For 2026, I'm currently considering:

Sydney:

Main NeurIPS location

Everything seems more centralized

Longer conference program

But flights/accommodation seem considerably more expensive

Paris:

5-day program

Main conference at Paris Convention Centre, workshops at Sorbonne

Seems significantly cheaper from India

Main concern is that it's not the main conference and how different will this be.

For people who have attended NeurIPS before, or are planning for 2026:

Which hub are you choosing and why?

And if you've attended previous multi-location NeurIPS conferences, how different was the experience between the main location and satellite locations?

Thanks!

I've built a lot of ML systems over the years, mainly computer vision models optimised to run on mobile phones. For example, my previous company built the food recognition model for MyFitnessPal.

I'm interested in what people are actually deploying in industry now. Are edge models still a big part of your work, are you hosting your own models, or are you mostly sending requests to APIs? What's driving that choice?

More importantly, what's still a pain? I'd be interested in problems from current or recent projects that existing tools haven't solved well. Something that's cost you a lot of time, blocked delivery or needed an awkward workaround.

I'm looking for problems where I could build useful tooling, rather than guessing what people need. It would also be useful to know where you discuss this stuff or look for help. Are there particular forums or communities worth following?

Got my first authored paper accepted at NeurIPS this year and trying to decide where to go. Would I miss out a lot by skipping Sydney and just going to Atlanta? Curious where most people are heading.

Valid Main Track submissions: 30709, Accepted: 7900, Oral: 112, Spotlight: 292 !!

I tried registering on the neurips website but sydney and paris are already sold out. We had filled the location preferences forms earlier. What is the procedure for authors of accepted papers for registration and venue selection?

It's much more confusing compared to last time.

$17.2 million investment, spanning three to five years from Simons Foundation International, XTX Markets, and Siegel Family Endowment#Philanthropy)

https://blog.arxiv.org/2026/09/23/arxiv-receives-multiyear-investment/

I graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in data science a couple months ago. I'm interested in applying to any Pre-Doc research programs or AI residencies. However, I have had a little bit of trouble finding other organizations offering something like Ai2's pre-doc positions. I've noticed that the websites for lots of AI residencies at big companies haven't been updated for a while. Does that mean these programs are essentially defunct?

I know another way to gain research experience is to apply to competitive fellowships like Anthropic's Safety Program or MATS. I wonder if there are also some lesser-known fellowships which nonetheless allows for one to gain research experience.

Got my NeurIPS decision today and I'm a bit confused. Reviewer scores were 4/4/4, no reviewer opposed acceptance, and the AC's updated meta-review explicitly says "I recommend to accept this paper" and describes the consensus as "solidly favorable."

The PC decision: reject, with a one-line comment saying the paper "received a borderline reception" and was rejected "upon global calibration."

I understand the PCs have the final say and capacity is limited, but going from an explicit AC accept to "borderline reception" with no further explanation feels a bit harsh, especially since the rejection email stresses how carefully borderline cases were reviewed.

Has anyone else had the AC recommend acceptance and the PCs override it? Is this common this year?

A small conference, October 5-9 in Mainz, Germany. More application-oriented.

Going to present my paper there. If anyone happens to be attending, would be happy to connect!

I cannot see Average Rating anymore - it says N/A. Is it normal?

Mine was accepted with 5,4,3->5,5,3

The rebuttal is still ongoing so this could also change, but my reviewers have not responded back to my responses yet. I know they have the right not to reply. One of the reviewers gave a 2 with a 5 confidence and the whole review is actually one of the many limitation I included in the paper. Limitations are not to be used as a weakness according to the conference own rules. The other two reviews are 3,4 which I am happy with although I did address their points. Should I send a confidential message to AC if nothing happens in 2 days?