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
- AI Researcher: Recursive Self-Improvement Bottlenecked by Ecosystem Data — herbiebradley · 2026-07-24
- Paper shows bounded approximations for Fisher-Rao distance in parametric models — FrnkNlsn · 2026-07-24
- A “lol Grok” post surfaces the alignment debate over whether RL gives models real goals — Sauers_ · 2026-07-24
- Science spotlights 4D nucleome papers in a new issue featuring single-cell 3D genome work — jmuiuc · 2026-07-24
- CogSci 2026 best paper goes to “On convexity and efficiency in semantic systems” — gregd_nlp · 2026-07-24
- Proba predicts how fine-tuning data will change open-weight models before training — markjeffrey · 2026-07-24