The IJCNN 2025 Review Process

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19244v1
• Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2026 15:17:17 GMT
• Title: The IJCNN 2025 Review Process
• Abstract summary: The International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) is the premier international conference in the area of neural networks theory, analysis, and applications.<n>The 2025 edition of the conference comprised 5,526 paper submissions, 7,877 active reviewers, 426 area chairs, 2,152 accepted papers, and more than 2,300 attendees.
• Score: 11.748189608685564
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) is the premier international conference in the area of neural networks theory, analysis, and applications. The 2025 edition of the conference comprised 5,526 paper submissions, 7,877 active reviewers, 426 area chairs, 2,152 accepted papers, and more than 2,300 attendees. This represents a growth of about 100% in terms of submissions, 200% in terms of reviewers, and over 50% in terms of attendees as compared to the previous edition. In this paper, we describe several key aspects of the whole review process, including a strategy for ranking the scores provided by the reviewers by evaluating a score index and a calibrated version used experimentally to remove reviewer-specific bias from reviews.

Related papers

• Deep Academic Survey: Stateful Agentic Closed-Loop Paradigm for Academic Survey Automation [60.151050016855834]
  DAS is a stateful agentic framework for generating publication-oriented academic surveys.<n>Its key idea is to separate reusable paper analysis from topic-specific manuscript construction.<n>DAS achieves the highest average in all four dimensions, with an overall score of 4.34 compared with 4.03 for the strongest competitor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-18T17:29:00Z)
• Local AI pre-screening for human triple-blind peer review in health sciences [0.0]
  An analysis of ICLR 2026 found roughly 21% of its 75,800 peer reviews were fully AI-generated.<n>We propose a triple-blind, multi-LLM pre-screening framework for peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-18T00:06:33Z)
• Rejoinder: The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review [49.43514488610211]
  This article is the rejoinder to The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review''<n>We organize our response around four core themes: (i) formulating peer review as a statistical estimation problem; (ii) mitigating equity and strategic concerns in the deployment of the Isotonic Mechanism; (iii) incorporating complementary signals such as reviewer rankings and structured metadata; and (iv) exploring a human-centered framework for peer review in the era of generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T17:06:47Z)
• From Authors to Reviewers: Leveraging Rankings to Improve Peer Review [10.541357028178831]
  The review quality of machine learning (ML) conferences has become a big concern in recent years.<n>We propose an approach that leverages ranking information from reviewers rather than authors.<n>Our results show that (i) ranking incorporating information from reviewers can significantly improve the evaluation of each paper's quality, often outperforming the use of ranking information from authors alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T19:16:09Z)
• The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review [49.43514488610211]
  Author-provided rankings could be leveraged to improve peer review processes at machine learning conferences.<n>We focus on the Isotonic Mechanism, which calibrates raw review scores using the author-provided rankings.<n>We propose several cautious, low-risk applications of the Isotonic Mechanism and author-provided rankings in peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T01:51:23Z)
• EFaR 2023: Efficient Face Recognition Competition [51.77649060180531]
  The paper presents the summary of the Efficient Face Recognition Competition (EFaR) held at the 2023 International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB 2023) The competition received 17 submissions from 6 different teams. The submitted solutions are ranked based on a weighted score of the achieved verification accuracies on a diverse set of benchmarks, as well as the deployability given by the number of floating-point operations and model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-08T09:58:22Z)
• Has the Machine Learning Review Process Become More Arbitrary as the Field Has Grown? The NeurIPS 2021 Consistency Experiment [86.77085171670323]
  We present a larger-scale variant of the 2014 NeurIPS experiment in which 10% of conference submissions were reviewed by two independent committees to quantify the randomness in the review process. We observe that the two committees disagree on their accept/reject recommendations for 23% of the papers and that, consistent with the results from 2014, approximately half of the list of accepted papers would change if the review process were randomly rerun.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T21:26:12Z)
• Integrating Rankings into Quantized Scores in Peer Review [61.27794774537103]
  In peer review, reviewers are usually asked to provide scores for the papers. To mitigate this issue, conferences have started to ask reviewers to additionally provide a ranking of the papers they have reviewed. There are no standard procedure for using this ranking information and Area Chairs may use it in different ways. We take a principled approach to integrate the ranking information into the scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-05T19:39:13Z)
• Matching Papers and Reviewers at Large Conferences [25.79501640609188]
  This paper studies a novel reviewer-paper matching approach that was recently deployed in the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2021) This approach has three main elements: (1) collecting and processing input data to identify problematic matches and generate reviewer-paper scores; (2) formulating and solving an optimization problem to find good reviewer-paper matchings; and (3) the introduction of a novel, two-phase reviewing process that shifted reviewing resources away from papers likely to be rejected and towards papers closer to the decision boundary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-24T18:13:43Z)
• Recognizing Families In the Wild: White Paper for the 4th Edition Data Challenge [91.55319616114943]
  This paper summarizes the supported tasks (i.e., kinship verification, tri-subject verification, and search & retrieval of missing children) in the Recognizing Families In the Wild (RFIW) evaluation. The purpose of this paper is to describe the 2020 RFIW challenge, end-to-end, along with forecasts in promising future directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-15T02:22:42Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.