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.
More from Research
- Tessellation-free geometric queries on displaced surfaces cut caustics variance 10x — ssh4net · 2026-10-16
- MIT's Buehler: AI as 'a new language of science,' three years on — ProfBuehlerMIT · 2026-10-16
- Mere availability of AI advice collapses human "I don't know" from 43% to 3% — ValerioCapraro · 2026-10-16
- One Bias Score, Two Factors: POSTECH Paper Decomposes Option Bias in MC Evaluation — Hyunjong Ok · 2026-10-16
- When the KV Cache Is Slower Than the GPU: Remote KV Tiers Backfire in Production — MultiverseComputingCAI · 2026-10-16
- Artificial Analysis launches Decision Index for the emerging decision model category — ArtificialAnlys · 2026-10-16