"Thank you for the rebuttal. I'll keep my score." As an AC of #NeurIPS2026 E&D track, I asked the reviewer to clarify No response so far How could authors expect them to respond if they don't even reply to an AC? We should set our bar highier and treat it highly irresponsible

I'm learning something new from a journal platform, which is new to me i.e., not OpenReview It shows me stats of reviewer activity for last X months, and there are reviewers who submitted 100 - 200 reviews in last 6 months (i.e., a review every 1-2 days) What are we doing?

Coco Police Skeleton Shocked

ALT: Coco Police Skeleton Shocked

static.klipy.com

Kudos to #ICLR2027 PCs for taking strong actions 👏 I like they keep it open to new people, mitigating a risk of "AI slop" Submission cap should be much lower, say 5 papers per author, unless their contribution is significant and they offer quality review workforce accordingly

Gautam Kamath@gautamkamath.com · 7d ago

ICLR 2027 has authorship quotas: - No more than 20 submissions per author - No more than 1 submission where no author has a paper previously accepted to a major ML conference From iclr.cc/Conferences/...

⏫Late update⏫ I got promoted to Senior Research Scientist Grateful for those who supported and my collaborators🙏

Thank you to all our #ECCV2026 reviewers. Special thanks to the Outstanding Reviewers for their exceptional contributions! 👏 eccv.ecva.net/Conferences/...

Ambitious me wants to see open-source ver. instead of open-weight ver. and who will remain and/or join

CNBC@cnbc.com · 2w ago

Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, Palantir and more than 20 other companies released a letter on Friday urging policymakers to avoid “premature restrictions” on open-weight artificial intelligence models that would “stifle competition or drive innovation overseas.” Full details: cnb.cx/3RwoKDJ

WACV 2027 R1 reviews are underway. Reviewers — thank you for your time. Authors — decisions land Aug 8, then rebuttals through Aug 20. Round 2 window: register Aug 20, submit Aug 27 (AoE). wacv.thecvf.com/Conferences/... #WACV2027 #ComputerVision

Finished all initial meta-reviews for #NeurIPS2026 E&D track🥱 While I'm still supportive of this experiment and potentially making it a standard, we should reduce assignments for ACs, say 4-5 papers per AC to help them do better jobs

Yoshitomo Matsubara@yoshitomo-matsubara.net · 2w ago

Writing initial meta-reviews for #NeurIPS2026 It's extra work for ACs, but authors can check how much effort their ACs made for the papers, and flag issues in their assessments if necessary Lazy ACs are more problematic than lazy reviewers I experienced it as an author as well

Came up w/ a crazy idea from #NeurIPS2026 complaints Create "AI-permissive" and "Legacy/Classic" tracks, expanding the idea of ICML'26 review policy The latter uses "AI-content" detectors w/ thresholds tuned to maximize recall for papers and reviews, and takes strong actions (DR, ban, etc) WDYT?

It may not be a new problem, but amplified by "AI-generated" artifacts People pursue "good points" e.g., paper accepted / served at top venues and tend to close their eyes to "bad points" e.g., accountability for their papers, reviews, and consuming/wasting community resource

Gautam Kamath@gautamkamath.com · 2w ago

Radical proposal: if you want to submit your work for review by other humans, it must first be publicly and permanently posted somewhere with your name on it.

Writing initial meta-reviews for #NeurIPS2026 It's extra work for ACs, but authors can check how much effort their ACs made for the papers, and flag issues in their assessments if necessary Lazy ACs are more problematic than lazy reviewers I experienced it as an author as well

Yoshitomo Matsubara@yoshitomo-matsubara.net · 2mo ago

#ICML2026 appeal failed 1. Escalated reviewer's policy violation to AC 2. AC kept silent 3. Escalated it to track chairs 4. Chairs kept silent 5. AC did the same violation in meta-review 6. Reminded chairs 7. Chairs got defensive, didn't acknowledge any What's the last resort?

Call for emergency reviewers #NeurIPS2026 I'm looking for two emergency reviewers: - Multimodal (text + vision) benchmark - AI for Science (text-focused) benchmark If you have experience in either domains, send me a DM including your OpenReview profile and Google Scholar links

Excited and honored to serve as a (Co-)Editor-in-Chief of @tmlrorg.bsky.social with great EiCs to run TMLR and improve its peer review system! It was not on my bingo card, but a surprising journey '21: Beta tester '23: First paper accepted '24: Reviewer '24-'26: Action Editor '26-: Co-EiC🆕

Transactions on Machine Learning Research@tmlrorg.bsky.social · last mo.

We're pleased to announce our newest Editor-in-Chief, Yoshitomo Matsubara (@yoshitomo-matsubara.net)! He started his term July 1, 2026. He has long been one of our most committed and thoughtful Action Editors, and we know he'll do a great job as a leader of the journal.

I wanted to point out pretty weak baseline implementations in a code repo for a paper accepted at a top-tier conference Then I learned that GitHub allows users to disable the Issues tab 😭

Is OpenScholar @ai2.bsky.social down? Or sunset? 😭

Majority of reviews I saw last 1-2 years including those I see as a #NeurIPS2026 E&D AC fall into one of the following patterns with some variations like bulleted instead of numbered Those comments come without any summary/justification for their score Do you see such a trend?

Managed to "migrate" my Google Scholar profile to another account I wish we had an easier solution

📢 ARR May 2026 cycle update We have published a blog post about the increased review assignments in the May cycle, what happened, and what comes next. Please read the full post here: aclrollingreview.org/may26-cycle-... #ARR #ACL #NLProc

An explanatory letter on the ARR May 2026 cycle

For the ARR May 2026 cycle, we had to make the difficult decision to increase the reciprocal service assignments for submitting authors. The reason for this decision was the substantial increase in su...

aclrollingreview.org

#ECCV2026 decision notifications will be sent via email by June 17th anywhere on Earth.

良いと思う 高専に入学した20年前から農業や水産などの高専は出来ないのかとずっと思ってた (高専にアニメ学科が要るかはわからない) www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZ...

高等専門学校、農業・アニメ学科を新設可能に　卒業生へ学位授与検討 - 日本経済新聞

文部科学省は高等専門学校（高専）に農業やコンテンツなど工業系以外の学科も新設できるようにする方針だ。併せて工業系も含めた卒業生への学位授与を検討する。高度技術者への需要は大きく、教育機能や魅力を高め優秀な人材の輩出につなげる。高専に関する政策パッケージの方向性を12日に示し、学科や学位についても盛り込んだ。月内にも詳細を議論する有識者会議を立ち上げる。松本洋平文科相は同日の閣議後記者会見で「

nikkei.com

#CVPR2026 made my last week very productive. I discussed the peer-review systems and future conferences with previous / current / future organizers It was a great honor working as Technical Chair closely with especially PCs, Workshop Chairs, and IEEE team! Thank you all!

#CVPR2026@cvprconference.bsky.social · 2mo ago

A huge thank you to the entire Organizing Committee for their hard work in making this conference a success. A special thank you to the Program Chairs for their tireless efforts in delivering an outstanding program. Your work is deeply appreciated! @cvprconference.bsky.social

Grabbed one!

Walter Scheirer@wjscheirer.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Signing books at the #CVPR2026 @computersociety.bsky.social booth at 2:30! Stop by to grab one…

Attending #CVPR2026 Hit me up if you want to discuss peer-review systems (suggestion/feedback), knowledge distillation, or ML OSS

#CVPR2026 Day 0 AC workshop, my favorite one 😀

#ICML2026 appeal failed 1. Escalated reviewer's policy violation to AC 2. AC kept silent 3. Escalated it to track chairs 4. Chairs kept silent 5. AC did the same violation in meta-review 6. Reminded chairs 7. Chairs got defensive, didn't acknowledge any What's the last resort?

Yoshitomo Matsubara@yoshitomo-matsubara.net · 3mo ago

TIL the importance of diligent ACs in the peer-review process (again), unfortunately as an author #ICML2026 No response to our repeated appeals against reviewer policy/guideline violation On top of that, the AC did the same violation as the reviewer I flagged What's next?

Just curious who'd benefit from indexing such "papers" on arXiv At least I would not look for such works at arXiv I feel that this type of work is more suitable for tech blogs, which I find more beneficial for both the authors and readers

At @arxiv.bsky.social, we are receiving a new type of paper that I call an "I did this experiment" paper. These papers typically report some experiment with an LLM or LLM "agentic" workflow. They are the kind of experiments an "insider" engineer would run to optimize a system. 1/

I support this change! To be honest, it could go further We should use this opportunity to rethink authorship and accountability

We are implementing a similar policy at @arxiv.bsky.social. If there is incontrovertible evidence of LLM slop in a paper, this means the authors did not take the time to read the LLM output and we can't trust anything else in the paper. Penalty is 1 year ban from arXiv followed by...

We are implementing a similar policy at @arxiv.bsky.social. If there is incontrovertible evidence of LLM slop in a paper, this means the authors did not take the time to read the LLM output and we can't trust anything else in the paper. Penalty is 1 year ban from arXiv followed by...

📜 Some of you may have heard about the desk-rejected papers from the ACL'26/ARR Jan 2026 or October 2025 cycles because of hallucinated references. These cases were detected post-commitment. ACL Program chairs have an official statement on this: 2026.aclweb.org/acl_statement/ #ACL2026NLP #NLProc

Sick for the last few days and couldn't do anything for my #NeurIPS2026 submission Yet, it should be alright. I believe that the submitted one is already strong