L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Développement · SKILL.md

neurips-review-process

neurips-review-process

Use when explaining or diagnosing the NeurIPS main-track review process, including OpenReview, reviewer and AC roles, contribution-type review, ethics flags, reciprocal reviewing, discussion, and LLM-review policy.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: neurips-review-process description: Use when explaining or diagnosing the NeurIPS main-track review process, including OpenReview, reviewer and AC roles, contribution-type review, ethics flags, reciprocal reviewing, discussion, and LLM-review policy.

NeurIPS Review Process

Use this skill to reason about what reviewers and ACs are likely to do with a submission. Do not use it to infer acceptance odds from folklore; use it to identify decision-relevant weaknesses.

Process model

  • Reviews happen in OpenReview under double blind.
  • Reviewers are asked to evaluate quality, clarity, significance, and the submission's declared contribution type.
  • ACs coordinate reviewers, handle conflicts and quality issues, write or supervise meta-reviews, and make recommendations.
  • Ethics concerns can be flagged and routed to ethics reviewers; severe cases can affect decisions.
  • Authors who are also reviewers or ACs face reciprocal-reviewing obligations; gross negligence can create sanctions affecting their own submissions.

Reviewer mental model

Reviewers are overloaded cross-area specialists. They need to see:

  • what the contribution is;
  • why it is new relative to close NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR/ACL/CVPR/KDD-style work;
  • whether the evidence supports the exact claim;
  • whether limitations, safety, data, and reproducibility are handled responsibly;
  • whether the paper can be trusted as a scientific artifact.

Diagnosis workflow

  1. Map each likely review concern to quality, clarity, significance, ethics, reproducibility, or fit.
  2. Predict which concerns the AC can use in a meta-review.
  3. Decide whether the problem is fixable by clarification, extra analysis, better framing, or re-routing.
  4. For author response, prioritize issues that change decision logic rather than issues that only improve tone.

Output format

[Likely review split] enthusiastic / borderline / skeptical
[AC-level issue] <one issue most likely to drive the meta-review>
[Ethics/reproducibility flags] <none or list>
[Response strategy] clarify / concede / add small result / reroute
Skills enregistrées