No new paper under review in TMLR since May 09? [D]

2026-05-18 · Source: Machine Learning · Field: Technology & Digital — Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning, Research Methodology & Innovation · Depth: Advanced, quick

Summary

The Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR) journal appears to have halted new paper submissions for review since May 9th, with no new action editor assignments occurring for over a week. While papers are still being accepted daily, indicating the editorial process is not entirely stopped, several users report uncharacteristically slow progress over the past two months. Reviewers have submitted recommendations without updates for a month, and some papers are stalled awaiting reviewer recommendations or further rebuttal. This slowdown is speculated to be due to a combination of post-NeurIPS recovery and end-of-semester breaks for academics, particularly in US grad schools.

Key takeaway

For research scientists considering TMLR for their next publication, you should be aware of the current significant slowdown in the review process. Expect extended wait times for action editor assignments, reviewer feedback, and final decisions. This situation might impact your publication timeline, so consider alternative venues or adjust your expectations for TMLR submissions accordingly.

Key insights

TMLR's paper review process has significantly slowed, with no new submissions entering review since May 9th.

In practice

• Monitor TMLR's "under review" tab for process updates.
• Factor in potential delays for TMLR submissions.

Topics

• TMLR
• Paper Review Process
• Action Editor Assignments
• Reviewer Recommendations
• Academic Calendar

Best for: Research Scientist, AI Scientist, AI Student

Related on AIssential

• Has anyone received decisions for the ICML 2026 GlobalSouthML workshop yet? [D] — Workshop decision timelines can be fluid, often experiencing delays past stated deadlines.
• Would a 2000-2021 ML paper even get accepted today? [D] — ML paper acceptance standards have shifted, with higher expectations for traditional research but a potentially lower bar for LLM-centric engineering.
• Impact of large language models on peer review opinions from a fine-grained perspective: Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI — LLMs are making peer reviews longer and more fluent but reducing focus on deep evaluative dimensions.
• 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.
• From Passive Generation to Investigation: A Proactive Scientific Peer Review Agent — Enabling LLMs to proactively investigate scientific papers via an MDP and structured log significantly improves peer review quality.

Open in AIssential →

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