How to get rejected by IEEE T-PAMI with 'Excellent' scores?[D]

2026-05-19 · Source: Machine Learning · Field: Science & Research — Research Methodology & Innovation, Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning · Depth: Intermediate, short

Summary

A junior Computer Vision researcher reports a highly unusual rejection from IEEE T-PAMI, despite receiving two "EXCELLENT" and one "GOOD" review. The Associate Editor (AE) cited comments from a supposed fourth reviewer to justify the rejection, claiming only three sets of comments were received initially. However, the authors later encountered the actual fourth reviewer, who confirmed submitting a positive review that was mysteriously withdrawn by the editor before the final decision. The AE's quoted critique from this fourth reviewer was minor, concerning only readability. The authors formally requested an investigation from IEEE and the Computer Society, specifically asking for backend activity logs, but have received no direct response after half a year, prompting them to seek advice and visibility for this alleged misconduct.

Key takeaway

For research scientists navigating academic publishing, be vigilant about the peer review process. If you suspect misconduct, meticulously document all evidence and formally report it to the journal's ethics office. While awaiting resolution, prioritize your career by submitting your paper to another reputable venue, as prolonged appeals can be emotionally draining and delay publication.

Key insights

Editorial misconduct in peer review can lead to unjust rejections and lack of accountability from publishing bodies.

Principles

• AEs should not misrepresent reviewer feedback.
• Transparency is crucial in peer review processes.

In practice

• Document all communication with journals and ethics offices.
• Submit rejected papers to alternative venues.

Topics

• IEEE T-PAMI
• Peer Review Integrity
• Editorial Misconduct
• Academic Ethics
• Computer Vision

Best for: AI Scientist, Research Scientist

Related on AIssential

• Greater than 80% of researchers at CVPR are chinese. This speak volumes on the chinese nexus in research, and something needs to be done about it. [D] — The integrity of machine learning conference peer review is widely perceived as compromised by systemic biases and quality issues.
• [D] Saw this papaer from ICLR with scores 2,2,2,4 and got accepted, HOW — Area Chair overrides in peer review can lead to controversial paper acceptance/rejection decisions, especially with low reviewer scores.
• Funniest predatory-journal pitch ever — Predatory journals use persistent, personalized, and seemingly legitimate outreach to solicit contributions from researchers.
• Intelligence Is Not the Bottleneck: Validating an LLM First-Pass Manuscript Score Against Peer-Review Outcomes — An LLM-based system can accurately predict peer-review outcomes and provide structured feedback for academic manuscripts.
• The peer review system is breaking down. Here’s how we can fix it — The voluntary peer review system is failing due to unacknowledged labor and increased academic pressures.
• Some Lessons on Reviews and Rebuttals — Effective academic reviewing and rebuttal writing hinge on structured processes and a constructive mindset.

Open in AIssential →

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