Tag: #paper-submission7 results
NeurIPS 2026 author notifications are scheduled for September 24, just one day before the September 25 ICLR paper deadline. Researchers are questioning the lengthy review and discussion process and considering preparing backup ICLR submissions in case of rejection.
A researcher saw an ICML 2026 reviewer raise their paper score from 4(3) to 5(3) after rebuttal, but it later dropped back to 4 during AC discussion. This reduced the average score from 4 to 3.75. The author worries about rejection chances.
A researcher seeks clarification on the discrepancy between their 33-page survey paper and the 20-page guideline for TPAMI submissions. The discussion highlights common confusion regarding academic journal formatting requirements.
A researcher submitted a regular paper to TMLR in February, which entered 'under review' status 6 weeks ago. Despite the website stating reviews due in two weeks, only one review has arrived. The poster debates contacting the Action Editor.
A submission to ICIP 2026 was desk-rejected due to author contribution statements deemed insufficient under IEEE rules, like reviewing ideas or feedback. Seeks clarity on what qualifies as significant intellectual contribution vs. acknowledgments. Questions phrasing and conference practices.
Paper on counter-narrative generation faces ACL ARR reviewer pushback on ethics despite open-sourcing, revisions, and IRB. Reviewers cite old versions, question agendas, and critique small human evals. Author seeks advice on rebuttal or reviewer swap risks.
A researcher shared scores from their first ACL ARR Jan submission: 4.5 (conf 5), 3.5 (conf 3), 3 (conf 3) after addressing concerns. They await meta-reviews on March 10 to decide on committing to ACL 2026 main conference or findings track.