Neurips workflow

NeurIPS Workflow

Use this skill as the router for the NeurIPS depth pack. It helps choose the next skill and stage the work so a manuscript does not arrive at submission with hidden policy or evidence gaps.

NeurIPS is a conference, not a journal: it has no standing editor-in-chief and no article-processing charge. The rotating leadership is the per-edition General Chairs and Program Chairs (2026 General Chairs: Hsuan-Tien Lin and Razvan Pascanu, verified 2026-06-22), and the cost model is registration fees, not APCs — proceedings are open-access on OpenReview. Conference organizers rotate yearly, so re-check the current CFP and committees page rather than carrying a name forward.

Stage map

1. Topic and track fit: use neurips-topic-selection.
2. Paper shaping: use neurips-writing-style, neurips-related-work, and neurips-experiments.
3. Artifact and supplement planning: use neurips-artifact-evaluation, neurips-reproducibility, and neurips-supplementary.
4. Final pre-submission audit: use neurips-submission.
5. Review diagnosis: use neurips-review-process.
6. Rebuttal and discussion: use neurips-author-response.
7. Acceptance and public release: use neurips-camera-ready.

Operating principles

• Start official-source checks early; NeurIPS annual policies change.
• Keep track choice explicit. A main-track method paper, E&D paper, position paper, and MLRC paper are not interchangeable.
• Write the checklist in parallel with the paper rather than at the end.
• Maintain one evidence table mapping every central claim to proof, experiment, data, artifact, and limitation.
• Keep an anonymous review artifact and a de-anonymized public release artifact as separate states.

Deadline ladder to schedule backward from

NeurIPS spreads its gates across the year, so plan backward from the abstract deadline, not the full-paper deadline. The exact dates move every cycle; reopen the current CFP and Main Track Handbook for the live calendar.

Gate	What locks here	Skill to finish before it
OpenReview profiles	every author needs an active, complete profile	neurips-submission
Abstract deadline	title, abstract, and author list freeze (order may change after)	neurips-topic-selection, neurips-related-work
Full-paper deadline	PDF, checklist, and code/data ZIP submitted together	neurips-experiments, neurips-supplementary
Reviews released	nothing changes; you read and triage	neurips-review-process
Author-response window	rebuttal through OpenReview, no new paper version	neurips-author-response
Decision	accept (spotlight/poster) or reject	neurips-camera-ready if accepted
Camera-ready	de-anonymize, finalize checklist, public artifacts	neurips-camera-ready, neurips-artifact-evaluation

Track-fork early warning

Decide the track before drafting, because the Datasets & Benchmarks track, Position Papers track, and MLRC/TMLR reproducibility route each have a distinct call, checklist emphasis, and review rubric. A dataset paper forced into the main track, or a reproduction study that belongs in MLRC, wastes a full cycle. If neurips-topic-selection flags a fork, resolve it before any other stage.

Worked vignette: where this router intervenes

A team has strong benchmark wins for a new retrieval method but no mechanism analysis and a thin limitations paragraph. The router routes them to neurips-experiments (add ablations and error analysis) and neurips-writing-style (calibrate the claim and the limitations) before neurips-submission, rather than letting a leaderboard-only paper reach OpenReview where reviewers predictably ask for the missing mechanism.

Output format

[Current stage] topic / drafting / pre-submission / review / rebuttal / camera-ready / reroute
[Next skill] <one NeurIPS skill>
[Official source to open] <CFP/handbook/template/OpenReview/checklist>
[Blocking gap] <policy/evidence/artifact/writing>
[Next action] <concrete task>