NeurIPS Peer Review is Highly Random: 50% of Spotlights Were Rejected in RCT
NeelNanda5 · x · 2026-07-24
AI researcher Neel Nanda shared practical advice for researchers going through the NeurIPS rebuttal phase. He advised authors not to take the review results too personally or be overly defensive, emphasizing the inherent randomness (RNG) in academic peer review.
Citing data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted before the use of LLMs, he pointed out that 50% of NeurIPS Spotlight papers were rejected by an independent review committee. This highlights that review outcomes involve significant luck, and researchers should focus on engaging constructively with genuine feedback.
More from Research
- Nature paper images cellular activity across all organs, revealing body-wide circuits — arjunrajlab · 2026-09-11
- SignNet 1M Dataset Released for Sign Language Research — ducha_aiki · 2026-09-11
- ECCV26 Oral: Flow Matching Enables Single-Stage Multi-View Point Cloud Registration — ducha_aiki · 2026-09-11
- InFlux++ Method Released — ducha_aiki · 2026-09-11
- Skyfall GS Uses Flux to Refine Gaussian Splatting, Accepted at ECCV 2026 — ducha_aiki · 2026-09-11
- Could 10k agents discover learning methods beyond backprop, or just tweak existing ones? — SeunghyunSEO7 · 2026-09-11