First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]

Reddit r/MachineLearning / 4/4/2026

💬 OpinionSignals & Early TrendsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • A PhD student asks how NeurIPS (a top ML venue) differs from lower-ranked conferences in terms of writing style, clarity of contribution, and how authors present their message.
  • They observe that top-venue submissions may be more theoretically oriented at times and wonder whether there are “golden rules” that frequently successful authors follow, especially around novelty claims.
  • The post also asks how researchers change their submission approach when moving from niche conferences to flagship venues like NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR.
  • The discussion context is imaging in healthcare, implying domain-specific considerations may affect how contributions are framed for top-tier review.

I'm a PhD student and already published papers in A/B ranked paper (10+). My field of work never allowed me to work on something really exciting and a core A* conference. But finally after years I think I have work worthy of some discussion at the top venue.

I'm referring to papers (my field and top papers) from previous editions and I notice that there's a big difference on how people write, how they put their message on table and also it is too theoretical sometimes.

Are there any golden rules people follow who frequently get into these conferences? Should I be soft while making novelty claims?

Also those who moved from submitting to niche-conferences to NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR, did you change your approach?

My field is imaging in healthcare.

submitted by /u/ade17_in
[link] [comments]