NIPS*2007 Author Instructions

This document contains information about the process of submitting a paper to NIPS*2007. You can also find the Call for Papers, evaluation criteria for NIPS papers, a page with the style files, and a complete list of keywords.

On September 5, the accept/reject decisions will be sent.

1.    Paper Submission and Deadline: NOTE CHANGE FROM LAST YEAR

NIPS accepts only electronic submissions at: starting Saturday, May 26. The submission deadline is 11:59PM UTC (7:59PM Eastern Daylight, 4:59PM Pacific Daylight) on Friday, June 8, 2007. The server may be open for a few more minutes after the deadline to allow for possible server load, so if you find the server closed, you have definitely missed the submission deadline.

There will be absolutely no extensions given to the submission deadline.

All submissions must be in pdf format. As we do not accept paper submissions, particular care should be taken to ensure that your paper prints well on the reviewers' hardware. Please consult Section 6 in the PDF/PS example file. Note that the maximal file length for submissions is 10MB.

You can upload an early version of your paper well before the deadline. If you start registering your paper only a few minutes before the deadline, you may not have enough time to fill in all the forms. Replacing an earlier version later is no problem and does not take as long ("upload early and often").

We also wish to draw your attention to the newly formulated NIPS evaluation criteria, which will form the basis for this year's acceptance decisions. If your paper is accepted, there will be an opportunity after the meeting to revise accepted manuscripts.

If you are not only an author but also a reviewer, please use the same login. If your paper is registered by your co-author, tell them which of your email addresses to use (the same as the one you are using as a reviewer).

2.    Paper Format

Your submission must follow the style files that are available at this location.

Papers departing from the formatting guidelines and all papers longer than 8 pages will be rejected without review.


3.    Double-Blind Submission

The NIPS reviewing process is now double blind, so please follow the style files provided and make sure the submission does not include author names and affiliations. In particular, here are some guidelines for submitting double-blind papers:

       Do not include any author name or affiliation in the title.

       Do not include any acknowledgments.

       Refer to your own published work in the third person. That is, use “In the previous work of Jones et al. [2]”, not “In our previous work [2]”.

       If you cite your other papers that are not widely available (e.g., a difficult-to-find technical report or a paper currently under review), use anonymous author names in the citation, e.g., an author of the form “A. Anonymous”.

Papers not satisfying these guidelines will not be reviewed.


4.    Keywords

The purpose of the keywords is to assist assignment of papers to area chairs and reviewers. However, the separation between different areas does not play a major role anymore, and authors should refrain from choosing keywords based on past rumors of what may increase their chances of acceptance. The keywords this year are hierarchically-structured, with each top-level area elaborated by more specific topics. If a low-level keyword (e.g., Gaussian processes) describes your paper well, use that; there is no need to also choose the top-level category to which it belongs (e.g., Probabilistic Models). Of course, you should still use all the keywords that are relevant to your paper (e.g., Gaussian Processes and Robotics-Perception). Note that the same keyword (e.g., Learning) can appear in multiple categories; these are not the same keyword. The list of keywords to choose from can be found here.


5.    Submitting extra material

As in last year's process, because of double-blind reviewing, authors can upload supporting material with their paper. Please make sure that the supporting material is also anonymized, removing your name from any extra material, and referring to previous work in the third person.

Such extra material may include long technical proofs that do not fit into the paper, image, audio or video sample outputs from your algorithm, animations that describe your algorithm, details of experimental results, or even source code for running experiments.

Note that the reviewers and the program committee reserve the right to judge the paper solely on the basis of the 8 pages of the paper: looking at any extra material is up to the discretion of the reviewers and is not required.

To submit a paper with extra material, please create an archive file and upload it to ConfMaster. This archive file can be in the .zip format (using WinZip or equivalent), or in .tar.gz format (using tar and gzip). There is a strict upper limit of 10 megabytes for any submission, including both the paper and the extra material. Archives larger than this will be rejected by ConfMaster. Please be circumspect, and upload only files that are directly useful for evaluating your paper.

To reduce load on the server, we request that large files be uploaded not right at the time of the deadline. Please upload material that is ready early (e.g., videos or images) as soon as possible.

If you do create an archive, please name your paper file in the following way: start with “paper_”, then use a few words from your title to disambiguate your paper from others, then end with “.pdf” or “.ps” as appropriate. For extra files, start with a description of the extra material, such as “proof_” , or “appendix_”, or “video_”; then use the same words as your main submission, then the appropriate extension.

Please use these naming schemes: failure to do so will break our automated scripts and result in your material not being available to the reviewers.

6.    Submitting previously published work

Submissions that are identical (or nearly identical) to versions that have been previously published or that have been submitted in parallel to other conferences whose audience significantly overlaps with the one of NIPS are not appropriate for NIPS. Exceptions to this rule are the following:

(1) Shorter write-ups of longer papers that have been recently (i.e. in the current calendar year) submitted to journals.

(2) Papers whose content is currently under review elsewhere or has very recently been published, but only in venues that are particularly inaccessible to the NIPS audience. In these cases, the NIPS submission should involve a substantial revision of the original paper, in a way that specifically highlights and expands on the relevance of the work to the NIPS community. The differential contribution between the original paper and the NIPS submission will be a factor in the decision. Authors of such papers must anonymously cite the earlier work, and include an anonymized copy in the supplementary materials.

Examples of conferences that are too close to NIPS and where double submission will not be considered: ICML, UAI, COLT, ICCV, ECCV, CVPR, ECML, AI&STATS, KDD, ICANN, IJCNN, WCNN, SODA, FOCS, STOC, ACL, EMNLP.

Examples of conferences where the papers are generally unfamiliar to the NIPS audience include application-oriented conferences, such as SIGGRAPH, SIGIR, RECOMB/ISMB, or WWW.

7.    Author feedback

Starting July 18, authors will be given the chance to see the reviews and respond to their content.

Giving feedback is optional: your feedback can be used by the reviewers to alter their judgment about the paper. The system allows you to respond to each review individually in a text box. These responses are due back by 23:59:59 UTC on Monday, July 23.

A few things to note about the author response:

       Due to a limitation in ConfMaster, you can submit feedback only once per review. We strongly recommend that you read the reviews, discuss the response amongst your co-authors, draft the response off-line, then upload the response(s). Only the contact author can upload the response.

       Note: the system has only accepted your response if you can read it after you click “Submit”. Otherwise, it is not registered in the system and reviewers cannot read it.

       We've limited each response to be 250 words long (per review). If you exceed 250 words according to the algorithm, the system will silently reject the response and allow you to try again.

       The word count is computed somewhat differently than the UNIX wc program: a word is a contiguous string of one or more characters from the set A-Z, a-z, underscore, or backslash. Digits are completely ignored. If you have Perl installed on your computer, you can emulate ConfMaster's word counting program by saving your response in a file, and typing

perl -ne 'END {print $x} s/\d+//g; @w = /([A-Za-z\\_]+)/g; $x += @w' filename

       Remember that reviewing is double-blind this year. Do not include any information in the response that can identify you or your co-authors. Please do not include any URLs in your response.

       Every response to a paper can be seen by every reviewer, so there is no need to repeat information between responses.

Finally, we recommend using the response to influence the reviewers where they can be influenced. If a reviewer has expressed uncertainty about an issue, or is making an incorrect assumption, or has misunderstood a point in the paper, that is ideal to address in an author's response. It may be difficult to change a reviewer's value judgment about a paper, such as overall clarity or significance. There is no need to respond to every minor question or suggestion for improvement. In any event, the best strategy is to be polite and professional.

Quick links: Home     Call for Papers     Author and submission instructions     Style files     Paper submission site     Paper evaluation criteria     Reviewer instructions     FAQ

Questions? Comments? Please send email to nips07 AT (non-standard form used to prevent spam).