Skip to yearly menu bar Skip to main content

NeurIPS 2023 Call for Ethics Reviewers

We are seeking qualified AI ethics reviewers who can assess NeurIPS submissions in at least one of the following areas: i) data provenance and quality; ii) evaluation and reliability; iii) fairness, bias, and discrimination; iv) human rights and inappropriate potential applications; v) policy, law, regulation, and compliance; vi) security and privacy, and vii) any other aspects of AI ethics.

NeurIPS has asked authors to consider ethics and broader impact when submitting their papers since 2021, and adopted a Code of Ethics in April 2023. Ethics reviews are a second round of review that take place should the program committee flag any potential concerns during the technical review phase. Ethics reviewers provide feedback to the program committee regarding risks and harms of the work, and recommend potential mitigations prior to acceptance. To minimize exposure risks, ethics reviews are only published at the author’s discretion; unlike technical reviews, which are all public. Please refer below and to the Ethics Review Guidelines for further details.

We ask that ethics reviewers: i) review up to 3 papers each, ii) provide ethics reviews during the period of July 12, 2023 - August 1, 2023, and iii) be available until August 30, 2023 for any follow-up discussions with the authors and program committee. Exceptional reviewers who have made significant contributions to the ethics review process may be considered for registration fee waivers for the NeurIPS main conference.

If you are able and willing to participate in the review process, please sign up at this Google form ( Feel free to share this call with your colleagues.

Thank you for your consideration,

Cherie Poland, Complex Adaptive Systems Research and Virginia Tech
Jiahao Chen, Responsible AI LLC
Lester Mackey, Microsoft Research

Important dates for conference and ethics review

  • Abstract submission deadline: Thursday, May 11, 2023 01:00 PM PDT.
  • Full paper submission and co-author registration deadline: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 01:00 PM PDT
  • Supplementary materials submission deadline: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 01:00 PM PDT
  • Technical review process: Saturday, June 10, 2023 - Monday, July 10, 2023
  • Start of ethics review reviewing process: Wednesday, July 12, 2023
  • End of ethics review reviewing process: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 01:00 PM PDT
  • Author response period: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 - Wednesday, August 9, 2023
  • Start of author ethics review discussions: Thursday, August 10, 2023, 01:00 PM PDT
  • End of author/reviewer discussions: Friday, September 8, 2023, 01:00 PM PDT
  • Author notification: Friday, September 22, 2023
  • Camera-ready deadline: TBD
  • Video submission deadline:  TBD
  • Poster submission deadline: TBD

About the ethics review process

The technical reviews conducted through the program committee (reviewers, program chairs and area chairs) is, and continues to be, the sole decision making process for accepting or rejecting papers for publications at NeurIPS. Technical reviewers are expected to review submissions not just for pure technical merit, but also in the context of the NeuriPS Code of Ethics.

The ethics review is a second round of review that take place only when the program committee flags any potential concerns during the technical review phase that merits further attention. Ethics reviewers provide feedback to the program committee regarding risks and harms of the work in line with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, and recommend potential mitigations that can be provided to authors to incorporate as feedback to revise their submissions.

The ethics review process is not a disciplinary or punitive process. However, in rare situations, the NeurIPS program committee may decide to reject submissions that have grossly violated the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, taking into account recommendations from the ethics reviews. In 2022, only 2 of 10,858 submissions were rejected on ethical grounds that could not be rectified in time for publication. Even so, the authors were provided with substantial guidance and relevant citations, and were invited to revise and resubmit to NeurIPS.

As detailed in the Ethics Guidelines for Reviewers, the ethics reviews generally follow the double-blinded review process of the main technical reviews. ​However, additional steps are taken in order to minimize exposure risks. During the ethics review process, any submissions flagged for ethics review will not be publicly labeled as such. During the author response period, ethics reviews will be anonymized when made visible to authors and technical reviewers. When the final accept or reject decision has been made, authors who have accepted papers may, at their discretion, choose to make their ethics review public.