NeurIPS 2026 Call for Ethics Reviewers
Ethics in ML research is an important part of ensuring the integrity and impact of scientific work, and NeurIPS 2026 is looking for Ethics Reviewers to support this process. If you are able and willing to participate in the review process, please sign up at this form. Feel free to share this call with your colleagues.
Key Dates
We ask that ethics reviewers
- Review up to 5 papers each,
- Provide ethics reviews during at least one of the following periods:
- July 6 – 20, 2026 (main ethics review period), *
- July 22 – August 13, 2026 (emergency review period – review requests may arrive at any point during this period)
* Note that ICML 2026 takes place July 6-11.
A full list of relevant dates for the conference is available here.
Again, the sign-up form is here: NeurIPS 2026 Ethics Reviewer Self-Nomination
About the ethics review process
The main reviews conducted through the program committee (reviewers, program chairs, and area chairs) are, and continue to be, the sole decision-making process for accepting or rejecting papers for publications at NeurIPS. Reviewers are expected to review submissions not just for pure technical merit, but also in the context of the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.
The ethics review is a second round of review that takes place mainly when the program committee flags any potential concerns during the main review phase that merit further attention. Ethics reviewers provide feedback to the program committee regarding risks and harms of the work in line with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, and recommend potential mitigations for authors to incorporate when revising their submissions.
The ethics review process is not a disciplinary or punitive process. However, in rare situations, the NeurIPS program committee may decide to reject submissions that have grossly violated the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, taking into account recommendations from the ethics reviews. In past instances where this occurred, the authors were provided with substantial guidance and relevant citations and were invited to revise and resubmit to NeurIPS.
As detailed in the Ethics Guidelines for Reviewers, the ethics reviews generally follow the double-blinded review process of the main reviews. However, additional steps are taken in order to minimize exposure risks. During the ethics review process, any submissions flagged for ethics review will not be publicly labeled as such. During the author response period, ethics reviews will be anonymized when made visible to authors and main reviewers. When the final accept or reject decision has been made, authors who have accepted papers may, at their discretion, choose to make their ethics review public.
Thank you for your consideration,2026 ETHICS REVIEW CHAIRS
Stephanie Hyland, Principal Researcher, Microsoft Research
Emanuel Moss, Senior Research Scientist, Intel
ethics-review-chairs@neurips.cc