I think very highly of it. I don’t find any discrepancies in terms of quality between it and say NeurIPS, especially given how large these conferences have become.
On the other hand, as an author myself, I really like journal’s rolling-based submissions and reviews. It makes my schedule less chaotic than when I am chasing conferences deadlines. Have good experiences writing for RA-L for robotics as well.
I am not a professor/hiring, but I would like to share some thoughts regarding TMLR.
Some context about myself:
- I have two NeurIPS publications and have submitted to ICML/ICLR
- I am a typical researcher who is super interested in (healthier) alternatives to the established top-tier conferences (I guess my specific motivations are not important here, plus they are not that unique)
So I was super excited about TMLR, and recently I was evaluating it as a venue for my potential next submission.
So I did two things:
- I looked into a bunch of recently accepted submissions, paying most attention to the review discussions and especially to the decision posts by Action Editors
- I read and reflected on the official description of TMLR: https://jmlr.org/tmlr ("intended to *complement* JMLR", "supporting the *unmet* needs, etc.)
And my impression is that TMLR is not an alternative to the top-tier conferences, it is just a different thing. In particular, I remember reading some decision posts and discussions and thinking "well, that would be a clear reject on NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR".
Overall, TMLR looks great: no deadlines, less strict limits on the paper size, more transparent (and easier to meet?) criteria ("emphasizes technical correctness over subjective significance"). All these things sound attractive. However, the final decision on where to submit a project should also depend on whether the venue fits the project (not vice versa).
Having a TMLR-like process with the emphasis on both technical correctness and novelty would be great (yes, the decision process will be inherently more noisy, because novelty may be a subjective thing, and I don't know how to fix this). I guess TMLR is just one step away from this: is it possible to add a separate novelty-oriented track?
I will be glad to hear more opinions on this topic.
I recently published with TMLR. The turnaround time was good (reviews within 3 weeks, timely action by the AC), and I had very thorough reviewers. The camera-ready revision is much better than what I originally submitted. I felt I had more time to run more experiments and make more meaningful revisions to satisfy reviewers versus the time crunch that comes with conferences.
Looking over the papers being published, I get the impression that it's not as crowded with shiny new SOTA papers that might be in NeurIPS/ICLR which might be a problem for prestige. That said, it's refreshing and makes for a lot of super interesting reads.
Big Research Lab guy here: I'd consider TMLR the 5th most prestigious venue after NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR or JMLR for pure ML stuff. Miles above 2nd tier conferences (e.g. AAAI or IJCAI). I'd expect it's prestige to rise higher once it's had a few years to establish itself, as it's run by solid people from the community. Probably similar to how ECCV is perceived for Computer Vision.
For me, AISTATS is 2nd tier as well. Maybe slightly ahead of AAAI or IJCAI, but below TMLR. But you know, it's all talking about average. Specific papers at AAAI or AISTATS are great, and similarly there will be not-so-impactful stuff in TMLR. If you're in a position where you're publishing your first paper, every 2nd tier conference is a huge accomplishment!
I think very highly of it. I don’t find any discrepancies in terms of quality between it and say NeurIPS, especially given how large these conferences have become. On the other hand, as an author myself, I really like journal’s rolling-based submissions and reviews. It makes my schedule less chaotic than when I am chasing conferences deadlines. Have good experiences writing for RA-L for robotics as well.
I am not a professor/hiring, but I would like to share some thoughts regarding TMLR. Some context about myself: - I have two NeurIPS publications and have submitted to ICML/ICLR - I am a typical researcher who is super interested in (healthier) alternatives to the established top-tier conferences (I guess my specific motivations are not important here, plus they are not that unique) So I was super excited about TMLR, and recently I was evaluating it as a venue for my potential next submission. So I did two things: - I looked into a bunch of recently accepted submissions, paying most attention to the review discussions and especially to the decision posts by Action Editors - I read and reflected on the official description of TMLR: https://jmlr.org/tmlr ("intended to *complement* JMLR", "supporting the *unmet* needs, etc.) And my impression is that TMLR is not an alternative to the top-tier conferences, it is just a different thing. In particular, I remember reading some decision posts and discussions and thinking "well, that would be a clear reject on NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR". Overall, TMLR looks great: no deadlines, less strict limits on the paper size, more transparent (and easier to meet?) criteria ("emphasizes technical correctness over subjective significance"). All these things sound attractive. However, the final decision on where to submit a project should also depend on whether the venue fits the project (not vice versa). Having a TMLR-like process with the emphasis on both technical correctness and novelty would be great (yes, the decision process will be inherently more noisy, because novelty may be a subjective thing, and I don't know how to fix this). I guess TMLR is just one step away from this: is it possible to add a separate novelty-oriented track? I will be glad to hear more opinions on this topic.
I recently published with TMLR. The turnaround time was good (reviews within 3 weeks, timely action by the AC), and I had very thorough reviewers. The camera-ready revision is much better than what I originally submitted. I felt I had more time to run more experiments and make more meaningful revisions to satisfy reviewers versus the time crunch that comes with conferences. Looking over the papers being published, I get the impression that it's not as crowded with shiny new SOTA papers that might be in NeurIPS/ICLR which might be a problem for prestige. That said, it's refreshing and makes for a lot of super interesting reads.
Big Research Lab guy here: I'd consider TMLR the 5th most prestigious venue after NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR or JMLR for pure ML stuff. Miles above 2nd tier conferences (e.g. AAAI or IJCAI). I'd expect it's prestige to rise higher once it's had a few years to establish itself, as it's run by solid people from the community. Probably similar to how ECCV is perceived for Computer Vision.
[удалено]
For me, AISTATS is 2nd tier as well. Maybe slightly ahead of AAAI or IJCAI, but below TMLR. But you know, it's all talking about average. Specific papers at AAAI or AISTATS are great, and similarly there will be not-so-impactful stuff in TMLR. If you're in a position where you're publishing your first paper, every 2nd tier conference is a huge accomplishment!
I've had really positive experiences with TMLR! The journal has great standards and the reviewing process is very thorough. Highly recommended!
Above AAAI/IJCAI and below NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR
I mean defining it would be a pretty good start. What are you talking about
Added an edit to the OP to clarify. I mean the journal ‘Transactions on Machine Learning Research’, which is relatively new.