# Get an AI review of your NeurIPS paper before you submit > Upload your draft PDF to reviewpaper.ai and choose NeurIPS. In a few minutes, three simulated reviewers fill in the NeurIPS main-track review form: summary, strengths and weaknesses, Quality, Clarity, Significance and Originality (1–4), questions, limitations, and the 1–6 Overall score with a confidence level. An area chair writes the meta-review, and you get a predicted score range, a ranked fix list and a check against the NeurIPS Paper Checklist. Every point links to the passage in your PDF. The first three reviews are free. - Venue: Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Review form: official, field by field at https://reviewpaper.ai/venues/neurips.md - Next NeurIPS deadline: NeurIPS 2027 abstract, ~Tue, May 4, 2027 · 23:59 AoE (estimated from last year): https://reviewpaper.ai/deadlines/neurips-2027.md - Web page: https://reviewpaper.ai/ai-review/neurips ## What the NeurIPS review contains Each of three simulated reviewers fills in the NeurIPS 2026 form, in this order: | Field | Type | |---|---| | Summary | free text | | Contribution Type | single choice | | Strengths | list of points | | Weaknesses | list of points | | Quality | score, 1–4 | | Clarity | score, 1–4 | | Significance | score, 1–4 | | Originality | score, 1–4 | | Questions | list of points | | Limitations | free text | | Overall | score, 1–6 | | Confidence | score, 1–5 | | Ethical Concerns | single choice | | Paper Formatting Concerns | free text | Overall scale: 6 = Strong Accept, 5 = Accept, 4 = Borderline accept, 3 = Borderline reject, 2 = Reject, 1 = Strong Reject. On top of the three reviews: - Area-chair meta-review with a recommendation (Accept (oral), Accept (spotlight), Accept (poster), Reject) - Score outlook: an expected score range and a likely accept, borderline or likely reject call - Fix list: what to change before submitting, ranked by impact - NeurIPS Paper Checklist: 16 items checked against the paper - Every point linked to the passage in the PDF ## When it helps at NeurIPS - **While drafting.** The four 1–4 sub-scores show which axis the draft is weakest on (quality, clarity, significance or originality), not just whether it is weak. - **The Paper Checklist.** NeurIPS requires it and reviewers read your answers. The check flags items the paper doesn't address, such as a missing limitations discussion, error bars or compute details. - **After a NeurIPS rejection.** Rework the paper and run it against the form of the venue you send it to next: [ICLR](https://reviewpaper.ai/ai-review/iclr), [AAAI](https://reviewpaper.ai/ai-review/aaai), [CVPR](https://reviewpaper.ai/ai-review/cvpr) or the next NeurIPS. - **When the real reviews land.** Import them in the Rebuttal tab and get a draft reply to every concern, quoting your paper. ## Sample report https://reviewpaper.ai/sample: a full report on a published paper (ICLR form), no sign-up. A NeurIPS report has the same parts in the NeurIPS form. ## FAQ ### Does it check the NeurIPS Paper Checklist? Yes. Every NeurIPS report includes a check against the Paper Checklist items, with a note on each one the paper doesn't address. The full list is on the [NeurIPS review form page](https://reviewpaper.ai/venues/neurips#checklist). ### What scores does a paper need at NeurIPS? NeurIPS 2025 accepted 24.5% of main-track papers. Accepted papers averaged about 4.3 and rejected about 3.6 (Paper Copilot). Rough rule: mean ≥ 4.0 likely accept, 3.5–4.0 borderline, < 3.5 likely reject. The outlook in every report uses this bar. ### How accurate is the predicted NeurIPS score? Treat it as a stress test, not a forecast. Real reviewers disagree a lot, and simulated ones can miss what a domain expert would catch or raise issues that aren't real. The value is in the specific criticisms, each linked to a passage, that you can fix before the deadline or answer in the rebuttal. ### Is the NeurIPS review form you use official? It follows NeurIPS's published 2026 reviewer form and guidelines, field by field, with the official score labels. The [NeurIPS form page](https://reviewpaper.ai/venues/neurips) lists every field and links the official source. ### Am I allowed to run my own paper through an AI reviewer before submitting to NeurIPS? Venue LLM rules are written for reviewers handling someone else's submission. NeurIPS's rule for reviewers: NeurIPS 2026 runs a sanctioned-LLM experiment: on some assigned papers reviewers may use only the sanctioned LLM; on all others any LLM use is forbidden, and sharing a submission with an unsanctioned LLM breaks confidentiality. Checking your own unpublished paper is your decision as the author, and nothing is shared with the venue. If you are an assigned reviewer, don't upload a paper you are reviewing. Our [LLM policies guide](https://reviewpaper.ai/guides/llm-policies-by-venue) lists every venue's rules with official links. ### Who can see my paper? Does it break double-blind review? Only you. The PDF is stored privately, served only to your signed-in account and never used to train models, so uploading a paper under double-blind review reveals nothing to reviewers, the venue or other users. Delete the paper and its file, reviews and chat are gone. Details in the [privacy policy](https://reviewpaper.ai/privacy). ### How is this different from asking ChatGPT to review my paper? A general chatbot writes one review in whatever format you prompt for. reviewpaper.ai reads the whole PDF, appendices included, has three reviewer personas fill in NeurIPS's own form and score scales, adds an area-chair meta-review, a score outlook and a ranked fix list, and links every point to the passage it is about so you can check it in seconds. ### My paper is already submitted. Is it still useful? Yes. Reviews take weeks, so seeing the likely objections now gives you time to run the missing experiment before the author response. When the real reviews arrive, import them for a draft rebuttal. If the paper is rejected, run the revision against the next venue's form. ### How much does it cost? Your first three reviews are free, with no card. After that, Pro is $10 a month for 12 credits, or buy 5 credits for $5. A Standard review (Claude Sonnet 5.5) costs 1 credit; Deep (Claude Opus 5.5) costs 2 and Max (Claude Fable 5.1) 6. See [pricing](https://reviewpaper.ai/pricing). --- Simulate reviews of your own paper in this venue's form: https://reviewpaper.ai/new?venue=neurips (3 free reviews). Sample report: https://reviewpaper.ai/sample. reviewpaper.ai is for authors checking their own paper at any stage: a draft, a submission under review, or a rejected paper being reworked. If you are an assigned reviewer, follow your venue's LLM policy: most venues forbid putting a submission you are reviewing into any external AI tool. Not affiliated with any conference.