[D] When to submit to a workshop and how much are top tier conference workshop papers worth?

2026-03-19 · Source: Machine Learning · Field: Science & Research — Research Methodology & Innovation, Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning · Depth: Intermediate, short

Summary

A researcher, after three rejections from main conferences for a paper, submitted it to a CVPR workshop, where it was accepted and will appear in the proceedings. This situation prompted questions regarding the optimal timing for workshop submissions, the commonality of not receiving detailed reviews from workshops, and the impact of a CVPR workshop paper on PhD program applications. Community replies indicate that submitting to workshops after multiple main conference rejections is a common practice, especially when chasing state-of-the-art comparisons becomes unsustainable. While workshop review processes can be inconsistent, a CVPR workshop paper, alongside a COLING 2025 paper, is generally considered a positive contribution for PhD applications, demonstrating research engagement and publication experience.

Key takeaway

For AI Scientists applying to PhD programs, a CVPR workshop paper, particularly when combined with another publication like a COLING paper, significantly strengthens your application. Focus on clearly articulating your contributions and understanding of the work, as admissions committees value demonstrated research capability over strict venue tier. Don't endlessly chase state-of-the-art comparisons for a paper if it delays publication; getting your ideas on record via a workshop can be a strategic move.

Key insights

Workshop submissions are common for papers rejected from main conferences, offering a publication path.

Principles

• Workshops vary in prestige.
• Publication is better than none.
• Timing matters for novel ideas.

Method

Consider workshop submission after 2-3 main conference rejections, especially if the research area is rapidly evolving and chasing SOTA becomes impractical.

In practice

• Submit to workshops after multiple rejections.
• Prioritize getting ideas on record.
• Explain your work clearly in PhD applications.

Topics

• Workshop Submissions
• Academic Publishing
• PhD Applications
• Peer Review
• Conference Papers

Best for: AI Scientist, AI Student, AI Researcher, Research Scientist

Related on AIssential

• [D] CVPR Score stats — Voluntary reporting of conference paper scores introduces selection bias, skewing statistics towards the mean.
• ICML non-archival workshop - worth attending? [D] — Non-archival workshop attendance can boost PhD applications through direct networking, despite papers not guaranteeing top-tier admission.
• How to build an AI Scientist: first peer-reviewed paper spills the secrets — AI Scientist, an autonomous research tool, successfully generated a peer-reviewed paper, demonstrating AI's capacity for scientific discovery.
• A key science publishing platform is cracking down on AI slop — arXiv's ban on AI-error papers highlights the challenge of maintaining research quality amidst rising AI-generated content.
• The uncritical adoption of AI in science is alarming — we urgently need guard rails — Uncritical AI adoption in science risks reduced research quality, narrowed scope, and deskilling future scientists.
• Can AI Review Improve Paper Drafting? An Empirical Study on 20 Computer Architecture Submissions — AI review can significantly align with human feedback and identify novel issues in paper drafting.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Machine Learning.