NeurIPS 2026 Rebuttal Deemed Perfunctory, Reviewer Apathy Sparks Outcry
After NeurIPS 2026 decisions were released, the academic community again erupted in criticism of top conference peer review. Multiple researchers pointed out that the rebuttal phase is perfunctory, with reviewers being dismissive, raising broad doubts about the effectiveness of the review process.
Confirmed
- A NeurIPS paper author shared a hardcore rebuttal title, directly stating that after pointing out the reviewer had not read the paper initially, the reviewer still did not read it in the second round. This anecdote was spread by @RylanSchaeffer and @evijit, sparking discussion.
- @miniapeur noted that reviewers (typically Reviewer 2) often leave a dismissive comment like "Thank you for your detailed response, I will maintain my score" in the last hour before the deadline.
- @karimjerbineuro confirmed that the rebuttal phase has ended, joking that being ignored by an anonymous reviewer is more hurtful than being stood up in real life, while thanking reviewers who actively participated and area chairs (ACs) who remained constructive.
- As final results came out, @miniapeur summarized that researchers complain their hard-written rebuttals often go unanswered and have no substantial impact on final acceptance.
Why it matters
- @SoloGen and others emphasized that if conferences cannot even guarantee that reviewers respond to authors in a timely manner during the rebuttal phase, the entire peer review process's effectiveness is questionable. This is not just daily academic grumbling but reflects a structural crisis of out-of-control review quality and "going through the motions" in academic communication amid the explosive growth of top AI conferences.
2026-08-03 ~ 2026-08-04 · 6 related posts
- Episode 1: NeurIPS Review Season Sparks Debate Over AI Reviewers and Peer Review(2026-07-27, 2 posts)
- Episode 2: NeurIPS 2026 Rebuttal Deemed Perfunctory, Reviewer Apathy Sparks Outcry(2026-08-03, 6 posts)
- Episode 3: AI Conference Review Crisis: Low Response, Hostility, and AI-Fabricated Content Accepted(2026-08-03, 10 posts)
- Episode 4: AI Agents Are Undermining Double-Blind Peer Review(2026-08-03, 3 posts)
Primary sources
- [source] Savage NeurIPS Rebuttal Title Roasts Reviewer for Not Reading the Paper — RylanSchaeffer · 2026-08-03
- Brutal NeurIPS Rebuttal: Author Calls Out Reviewer for Not Reading Paper — evijit · 2026-08-03
- A NeurIPS complaint turns into a broader critique of reviewer accountability — SoloGen · 2026-08-04
- NeurIPS 2026 Reviews Out, Researchers Joke About Rebuttals Falling into the Void — miniapeur · 2026-08-04
- [source] NeurIPS 2026 rebuttal phase ends, researchers joke about ghosting by anonymous reviewers — karimjerbineuro · 2026-08-04
- [source] NeurIPS Rebuttal Reality: Reviewer Drops 'I Maintain My Score' at the Last Minute — miniapeur · 2026-08-04