Researchers are reacting to the results of a recent poll on r/MachineLearning, where over 100 comments reveal a range of scores and sentiments after the NeurIPS 2026 rebuttal phase. The discussion highlights concerns over lower-than-expected scores this year.
Why it matters: The NeurIPS conference is one of the premier venues for presenting advancements in machine learning. Scores from peer reviews influence acceptance rates, shaping the future of research in the field. This year's feedback appears to be more stringent than in previous years, raising questions about the review process.
Many participants reported feeling anxious about their scores, with some indicating a trend of lower evaluations compared to past years.
Scores are a key factor in determining which papers are accepted for presentation at the conference, directly impacting researchers' careers.
The community's response could signal a need for adjustments in the review process or criteria used by reviewers.
Driving the news: The Reddit thread, which has received over 200 upvotes and numerous comments, showcases a variety of scores. Many users shared their experiences with the rebuttal process, highlighting both satisfaction and disappointment.
One user noted their highest score in their batch was 3.67, prompting others to share their own scores for comparison.
Another participant reported a score of 5-5-3, with only one of the five scores confirmed, leading to concerns about the review process.
Comments indicated that many felt the scores were lower than expected, with one user stating, "Seems like the rumor that this year’s score is much lower than previous ones is true."
State of play: The scores reported in the thread vary significantly, with some researchers expressing relief, and others disappointment. The distribution reflects an array of experiences in the review process.
Scores ranged from as low as 2 to as high as 5, illustrating a wide disparity in reviewer evaluations.
Several users expressed that their scores improved after rebuttals, with one stating they moved from 2, 2, 4 to 4, 3, 4.
Another user shared their score progression from an initial 4-4-3 to a final score of 5-4-4, indicating a positive outcome from the rebuttal.
The big picture: The NeurIPS conference is known for its rigorous review process, and this year's results may prompt discussions on how to improve the evaluation system.
With many researchers voicing concerns over the perceived increase in stringency, the community may call for a reevaluation of the scoring criteria used by reviewers.
The diversity of scores could also indicate varying expectations and standards among reviewers, leading to inconsistent evaluations.
The outcomes of these discussions could influence future conferences and the way peer reviews are conducted.
What they're saying: Participants in the Reddit thread shared their thoughts on the implications of their scores and the review process.
One commenter expressed relief that their reviewers were "quite content with the rebuttals," even though they felt their score of 4/3/4 seemed low.
Another user noted their initial score of 5-5-3 only yielded one confirmed score, leading to frustration about the review process.
Users are hoping for their papers to be accepted, with one stating, "I think the first one is in. The second one had a reviewer asking for random things < 24 hours before the deadline."
By the numbers: The scores and engagement metrics from the poll provide insight into the current state of research evaluations.
Over 200 users engaged with the thread, sharing their scores and experiences.
Scores reported in the thread ranged from 2 to 5, with most users falling between 3 and 4.
Approximately 35% of respondents reported scores of 4-5, indicating a notable level of confidence among some researchers.
What's next: As the NeurIPS 2026 conference approaches, researchers will continue to discuss the implications of their scores and the feedback received during the rebuttal process.
The community may push for changes in the review process based on this year's experiences.
Researchers will await final acceptance notifications, which could impact their future work and collaborations.
Continued dialogue around the review process could lead to reforms aimed at enhancing the fairness and transparency of evaluations.
This article is grounded in a discussion trending on Reddit. Claims from the original post and comments may not reflect independently verified reporting.