Skip to yearly menu bar Skip to main content


NeurIPS 2025 Call for Ethics Reviewers

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

Key Dates

We ask that ethics reviewers:

  • Review up to 5 papers each,
  • Provide ethics reviews during at least one of the following periods:
    • July 7 - 20, 2025, (main ethics review period)*  
    • August 7 - 18, 2025**,
    • August 21 - August 27, 2025**, and/or
    • August 28 - September 10, 2025**.

* Note that ICML takes place July 13-19.

** For these review periods, reviews may come in at any time during this time window.

A full list of relevant dates for the conference is available here.

About the ethics review process

The main 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. 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 takes place mainly when the program committee flags any potential concerns during the main 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. When such situations occurred in the past, 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 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 main 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.

Disclaimer. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the City of New York or its Office of Technology and Innovation.

 

Thank you for your consideration,

2025 ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE CO-CHAIRS

Jiahao Chen, Director of AI/ML, New York City Office of Technology and Innovation
Stephanie Hyland, Principal Researcher, Microsoft Research
Hima Lakkaraju, Assistant Professor, Harvard University
ethics-review-chairs@neurips.cc