The TMLR 2026 review form, explained

How TMLR reviewers read your paper

TMLR is a journal with rolling submissions. Acceptance rests on two questions only: are the claims supported by accurate, convincing and clear evidence, and would at least some of TMLR's audience be interested in the findings? TMLR explicitly avoids judging novelty, significance or impact: a narrow but well-supported contribution should be accepted. Presentation problems matter only if they materially get in the reader's way. Reviewers list requested changes, each marked critical or merely strengthening, flag broader-impact concerns, and after discussion recommend Accept / Leaning Accept / Leaning Reject / Reject (plus optional certifications). Reviews are public.

• Do not reject for lack of novelty, significance or state-of-the-art results; judge only whether claims are supported and whether some audience would care.
• If over-claiming is the problem, say which claims to scope down rather than rejecting the work outright.
• Mark each requested change as critical to acceptance or as merely strengthening the paper.
• Respectful, engaged tone; reviews become public on OpenReview.

Where the bar sits. TMLR has no acceptance quota and publishes no rate. The action editor accepts when both criteria hold (claims supported, some audience interested), so a mean of 3 (Leaning Accept) or more is the rough line. Recommendation scores are mapped 1 Reject … 4 Accept by us; the labels are TMLR's.

The reviewer form, field by field

In the order reviewers see it, with every score and its official wording.

1. 01

   Summary Of Contributions

   Free text

   The paper's contributions in your own words, with its key strengths and weaknesses in brief. Not a substitute for the two criteria answers below.

2. 02

   Are the claims made in the submission supported by accurate, convincing and clear evidence?

   Single choice

   The most important criterion. Judge only whether the stated claims are backed by accurate, convincing and clear evidence. Novelty and significance are explicitly NOT criteria; narrow claims that are fully supported are fine.

   • Yes
   • No
3. 03

   Claims And Evidence: Explanation

   List of points

   Explain the answer above: for each central claim, whether and how the evidence supports it. Unsupported or over-stated claims are the main reason to reject; say how they could be scoped down or supported.

4. 04

   Would at least some individuals in TMLR's audience be interested in knowing the findings of this paper?

   Single choice

   A low bar: if unsure whether anyone would be interested, assume they would. Answer No only for findings no ML researcher or practitioner would care about.

   • Yes
   • No
5. 05

   Audience: Explanation

   Free text

   Who in TMLR's audience would find the findings useful, and why (or why no one would).

6. 06

   Requested Changes

   List of points

   Proposed adjustments to the submission. Start each with "[Critical]" if it is critical to securing your recommendation for acceptance, or "[Strengthening]" if it would simply strengthen the work.

7. 07

   Broader Impact Concerns

   Free text

   Ethical concerns that would require adding a Broader Impact Statement, or that the existing statement does not adequately address. "None" if there are none.

8. 08

   Recommendation

   Score · 1–4

   Submitted on the separate Official Recommendation form after discussion. Must be consistent with the two criteria: Accept or Leaning Accept if and only if both answers are Yes.

   1. 4Accept
   2. 3Leaning Accept
   3. 2Leaning Reject
   4. 1Reject

Area chair meta-review

TMLR action editors decide from the two criteria, not from novelty. The decision has three outcomes: Accept as is, Accept with minor revision, or Reject (optionally inviting a major-revision resubmission).

• Accept as is
• Accept with minor revision
• Reject

Policy on LLMs in reviewing