Researchers Slam NeurIPS Review Process: Ghosting and Lack of Accountability
RexDouglass · x · 2026-08-03
An AI researcher complains about the NeurIPS submission process, where they invested significant time and API costs into running additional experiments only to be 'ghosted' by reviewers.
To address this pain point in academic peer review, the author calls for conferences to introduce longer discussion periods, establish accountability or incentive mechanisms for reviewers, or simply reduce the overall workload assigned to individual reviewers.
Related event: AI Conference Peer Review System in Crisis(4 posts)→
More from Research
- Japanese Junior Researchers Launch LENS Community for Computer Vision — HirokatuKataoka · 2026-08-03
- SULAND v2 Benchmark: Fixing Annotations Boosts Landmine Detection mAP by ~20 Points — Sagar Lekhak · 2026-08-03
- LILO Framework Enables LLMs to Automatically Refactor Code and Generate Docs — burny_tech · 2026-08-03
- NeurIPS 2026 Announces AIDaR Workshop on Data Infrastructure for Scientific AI — arjunrajlab · 2026-08-03
- Top Finance Journal Opens Special Issue on the Economic Implications of AI — JMateosGarcia · 2026-08-03
- Interview with Luo Ping: The Core of Embodied AI Models is Bridging the Human-to-Robot Data Loop — 机器之心 · 2026-08-03