What we learned from NeurIPS 2020 reviewing process

  • NeurIPS submissions continued to grow at a steady annual rate of 40%.
  • Summary rejection did not yield a very high false positive rate, but did not eliminate a lot of submissions either.
  • Inviting authors to review has proven a very effective way to scale up the review process.
  • Very few papers were flagged for ethical concerns. We had a dedicated process to handle such cases, which provided authors with additional feedback from experts in ethics and machine learning.
  • Communication with authors during the discussion phase helped resolve some difficult cases.

--

--

--

Tweets sent to this account are not actively monitored. To contact us please go to http://neurips.cc/Help/Contact

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

Seattle Car Accident Severity /IBM Capstone Project

Using machine learning to find an immediate replacement for Virgil Van Dijk.

R²: An intuitive metric to measure the accuracy of a model

Gartner Data & Analytics Summit Sessions: By and Beyond the Numbers

Tutorial Codeigniter Part2 (Query Builder)

Occasion based Recommendation system in E-commerce like Amazon, Etsy

Arithmetic Versus Geometric Mean Conundrum

How To Measure the ROI of Data Analytics

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Neural Information Processing Systems Conference

Neural Information Processing Systems Conference

Tweets sent to this account are not actively monitored. To contact us please go to http://neurips.cc/Help/Contact

More from Medium

David Mountain: KPI Marketing and Embracing the the New Normal

Ravet and the Blue Monster

The Perfect Match: How the YES Internship Program Pairs Students and Startups

Organizing Your Internal Processes At Early Stage