Yoshitomo Matsubara

As in previous years, TMLR will pause new submissions over the upcoming holiday period from November 30, 2026 at 11:59 PM to January 3, 2027 at 11:59 PM (AoE timezone for both). We will resume accepting new submissions on January 4, 2027. Happy Holidays!

How do you tell if authors fabricated their research results? Sometimes: they just tell you. Read, e.g., this caption carefully. Another banger of a post by my friend Nihar B. Shah on his blog, where he found at least 20+ such #ICLR2027 submissions: researchonresearch.blog/2026/10/20/s...

We posted an article about what we're doing under 300% increase in submissions For example, we desk-reject a lot of papers before we assign AEs to submissions Our recent data suggest about 90% of desk-rejections are done by EiCs There are more items to learn. Check it out! 👀

Looks so fun! though I'm afraid that I'm outlier here😂 My 9 games #My9Games www.my9games.net/en/share/3d2...

Blackout while heatwave is hitting California 🥵

Great initiative and big improvement!👏 I support the change. It can be even stricter 😃

As an OSS maintainer, how would you feel when you see an seemingly autogenerated "bug report" as a GH issue at your repo? Bonus: you learn the same user did the same for many repos in last few hours

🚀We have PhD openings in my lab! 3D got pretty interesting :) Generation is getting better, which makes real scenes more interesting: things get used, opened, moved, etc We want to understand that in 3D: function, dynamics, physics 👉apply 3dunderstanding.org/openings.html or via ELLIS

Thanks @paulvicol.bsky.social for building the nice blog! 👏 Our previous Medium posts were migrated to the new blog Time to say goodbye to our legacy Medium blog 👋

Nihar Shah did a heroic experiment for TMLR: he spent 20-25 hours over two weeks interviewing authors of seemingly low-quality submissions about their own papers. He confirmed what we all suspected: people submitting these papers have *no idea* what is going on in them.

Do authors understand their own papers? Our desk rejection rate at TMLR is about 53% while it was only 6% in 2023 To understand the situation and assess our process, Nihar asked authors about their own TMLR submissions Learn the findings of the pilot study & share your thought

Another great initiative to make the review process sustainable, this time from NLP community TBH, I am not certain yet that a lottery would work out. 20-submission cap sounds too much I like ideas to support those who need it such as mentorship🤗

Heading to Malmö, Sweden for #ECCV2026 ✈️ If you attend it in person and want to discuss the current peer-review systems, hit me up and discuss 🤗

I was interviewed by @jeffreybrainard.bsky.social from Science about "AI peer-review" and shared my experience Science published his article yesterday. While I found many of the names mentioned in the article familiar, I learned a lot from it Check it out and share your thoughts!

I like the #ICLR2027 submission policies and strongly support them "The deanonymization policy" is my favorite Personally, I think all major AI/ML-related conferences should follow that in this era The submission cap can be even lower, say 10 or even 5 from next year blog.iclr.cc/2026/09/02/s...

Two weeks passed after #NeurIPS2026 meta-review deadline Nothing has happened since then. No message from PCs or SAC We still have three more weeks until the decision release Who is currently working on what? Are PCs chasing late ACs?

Is it becoming a common practice to use a rage/engagement-baity title in a paper? I feel it's unprofessional and insincere for the community Also, deflecting valid criticism as envy is next level Not citing the posts to avoid further attention being paid to the ragebait poster

TMLR has refocused its acceptance criteria to place more emphasis on clear writing. Read more in this blog post: medium.com/@TmlrOrg/inc...

This was a tough decision. Surveys can have value. And I think a great survey now is of higher value than ever before. But finding great surveys is increasingly reviewer labour intensive, and it's adjacent to our main scope and mission.

Starting September 1, 2026, TMLR will no longer be considering survey papers for review. This is in part due to limited reviewer resources and significant required labour for reviewing surveys, as well as the evolving role of surveys in our field.

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?

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

⏫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

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

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

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

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🆕

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