KDD 2025 2nd-round Review Results: How Did Your Paper Do?
-
https://www.zhihu.com/question/12035973262/answers/updated
some data points from Chinese researcher community -
Anyone knows the likelihood of an NLP (LLM agent and its evaluation on many public datasets) work accepted to KDD, either main or applied data science track?
-
what are the chances of acceptance in KDD feb, here is my score
Relevance: 3.5 (based on 4, 3, 4, 3, 4)
Novelty: 3.0 (based on 4, 3, 2, 3, 2)
Technical Quality: 3.0 (based on 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
Presentation: 2.8 (based on 3, 3, 3, 2, 3)
Reproducibility: 3.0 (based on 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
Reviewer Confidence: 3.4 (based on 3, 4, 3, 4, 3) -
what are the chances of acceptance in KDD feb, here is my score
Relevance: 3.5 (based on 4, 3, 4, 3, 4)
Novelty: 3.0 (based on 4, 3, 2, 3, 2)
Technical Quality: 3.0 (based on 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
Presentation: 2.8 (based on 3, 3, 3, 2, 3)
Reproducibility: 3.0 (based on 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
Reviewer Confidence: 3.4 (based on 3, 4, 3, 4, 3)@Nilesh-Verma from what I hear, Novelty and TQ (combined with confidence) are two most important dimension for making the final decision. I think TQ scores are pretty good; Novelty scores are not bad either. If rebuttal can increase one of the "2"s to 3, then the chance of getting an acceptance will be even higher.
-
I hereby paste the historical acceptance rate of KDD research tracks
Conference Long Paper Acceptance Rate KDD'14 14.6% (151/1036) KDD'15 19.5% (160/819) KDD'16 13.7% (142/1115) KDD'17 17.4% (130/748) KDD'18 18.4% (181/983) (107 orals and 74 posters) KDD'19 14.2% (170/1200) (110 orals and 60 posters) KDD'20 16.9% (216/1279) KDD'22 15.0% (254/1695) KDD'23 22.1% (313/1416) KDD'24 20.0% (411/2046) Note that KDD'24 accepted 151 ADS track papers from 738 submissions!
-
The KDD PC just opened the comment phase until Apr 18 (AoE). You can respond to reviewer follow-ups or raise concerns to AC/SAC via the Official Comment button.
οΈ A few donβts:
- No URLs β theyβll auto-delete your comment.
- No bypassing rebuttal limits β donβt treat comments as extra rebuttal space.
- Donβt badger reviewers β 1 ping is enough.
- Stay respectful β tone matters.
Good luck everyone
-
I made a summary of data points from KDD 2025 1st round results:
Novelty Scores Technical Quality Scores Confidence Scores Rebuttal Outcome Final Decision Notes 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 β Addressed issues Accepted
"Rebuttal is so difficult with all the twists and turns" 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Submitted Rejected
"Can I just run away?" 4 3 3 1 4 4 2 2 β Explained issues Rejected
"Large variance across reviewers; no score changes post-rebuttal" 3 3 3 3 3 2 β Unsure π‘ Unknown "Still considering rebuttal; not sure if it's worth the effort" 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 β Minor clarifications Accepted
"Final scores unchanged but accepted after positive AC decision" 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 β Clarified results Rejected
"Novelty OK, but TQ too weak; didn't convince reviewers" 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Submitted Accepted
"Strong consensus; one of the smoother cases" 3 3 3 3 3 2 β No rebuttal Rejected
"No rebuttal submitted; borderline scores" 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 β Rebuttal sent Rejected
"Reviewers did not change their opinion" 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 β Rebuttal helped Accepted
"Accepted despite one weaker reviewer" 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Rebuttal sent π‘ Unknown "In limbo; waiting for final decision" 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 β Not convincing Rejected
"Work deemed not βKDD-levelβ despite rebuttal" 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Submitted Accepted
"Perfectly consistent reviewers; smooth acceptance" 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 β Rebuttal failed Rejected
"Low technical quality and variance led to rejection" Note: Data sourced from community discussions on Zhihu, Reddit, and OpenReview threads. Subject to sample bias.
@river Hi river,
Excuse me, do you know if these scores are the final scores after the rebuttal? Really appreciate it if you could provide more information about this
-
what are the chances of acceptance in KDD feb, here is my score
Relevance: 3.5 (based on 4, 3, 4, 3, 4)
Novelty: 3.0 (based on 4, 3, 2, 3, 2)
Technical Quality: 3.0 (based on 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
Presentation: 2.8 (based on 3, 3, 3, 2, 3)
Reproducibility: 3.0 (based on 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
Reviewer Confidence: 3.4 (based on 3, 4, 3, 4, 3)@Nilesh-Verma Hi Nilesh, I am sure the scores of your paper are higher than those of most authors. Congs. Besides, did your reviewers increase their ratings for your paper in the rebuttal process?
-
@river Hi river,
Excuse me, do you know if these scores are the final scores after the rebuttal? Really appreciate it if you could provide more information about this
This the best effort scores, meaning I take the latest available scores reported in the community. If they are updated by the authors after rebuttal, then I take that, otherwise I would assume the scores did not change.
For the data points with accept/reject outcome, I think all of them are post-rebuttal scores.
-
A data point:
GNN work, got
Novelty: 3, 2, 2, 3, 2
Technical Quality: 2, 2, 2, 2, 2
Confidence: 3, 4, 3, 4, 4Need to rebuttal? anyone knows more? 2 weeks challenge ahead!
Hi magicparrots!
did the reviewers raise their scores for your paper after the rebuttal process?
I also submitted a paper about GNN, and only one reviewer out of five raised 1 score for my paper -
This the best effort scores, meaning I take the latest available scores reported in the community. If they are updated by the authors after rebuttal, then I take that, otherwise I would assume the scores did not change.
For the data points with accept/reject outcome, I think all of them are post-rebuttal scores.
@river Many thanks for your details!