Not-So-“Easy” Conference Anymore? IJCNN 2025’s Changing Acceptance Rate and Its Impact on Researchers
-
In recent years, the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) has been colloquially referred to as a “graduation conference” by certain communities, implying it was easier to get a paper accepted compared to many other venues. However, judging from the latest announcements and community feedback, IJCNN 2025 appears to have tightened its acceptance standards and drastically lowered its acceptance rate.
Below, we’ll explore how this shift impacts early-career researchers, why the change is making waves in the community, and real reactions from those who submitted their papers this year.
Historical Context: A Gradual Decline in Acceptance Rates
Data from multiple online discussions and user reports indicate that IJCNN previously maintained relatively high acceptance rates:
- 2021: ~59.3%
- 2022: ~57%
- 2023: ~54.76%
- 2024: ~52.63%
These already-sizable acceptance rates, combined with IJCNN’s broad call-for-papers (which spans almost any AI-related topic), made it an appealing choice for many Master’s or doctoral students, especially those required to publish in a CCF-C conference to fulfill graduation requirements.
However, fast-forward to 2025, and the scenario seems to have changed significantly. Community chatter suggests that this year’s acceptance rate could be as low as 40% (and some have even mentioned ~38% from anecdotal tallies). While no official confirmation pinpoints the exact final percentage, many authors report rejections despite receiving what they thought were adequate or even strong reviews.
Real-Life Examples from the Community
One of the most striking aspects of this year’s IJCNN is the volume of anecdotes from authors who believed their papers were more than good enough, yet still received rejections. Here are some notable sentiments (paraphrased from community discussions and group chats):
-
Multiple Strong Accepts, Yet Rejected
A user recounted having four reviews: three “accept” (two of which were “strong accept”) and one “fair” — yet the paper was ultimately rejected. In previous IJCNN editions, this sort of score combination would have almost guaranteed acceptance. -
SOTA Results Still Not Enough
Another author claimed their paper introduced state-of-the-art (SOTA) improvements on two different datasets, but still received a rejection. They compared their experience to “last year’s baseline,” arguing that what used to be sufficient for acceptance no longer seems to be enough. -
All Positive Reviews Turned into Multiple Rejections
A reviewer who examined three submissions said they recommended “accept” for all three. In the end, only one was accepted, showing that final decisions are not solely dependent on reviewer scores, but also on area chair discussions, meta-reviews, and possibly an overall quota. -
Former “Easy” Path to Graduation?
Several Master’s students who were banking on IJCNN 2025 acceptance to complete their thesis requirements are now scrambling to adjust. Some mention they might have to try other upcoming conferences like “ICIC” or “SMC,” or even pivot to journals if time allows.
Why the Sudden Shift?
While the IJCNN 2025 organizing committee has not released a formal statement explaining the drop in acceptance rate, various community theories exist:
-
Desire for Higher Prestige
It is common for conferences to periodically tighten their acceptance policies as part of a broader push to increase academic rigor and standing in the AI research community. -
Increasing Submission Volume
Each year sees a growing interest in AI, which translates to more submitted manuscripts. Even if the committee accepts the same absolute number of papers, the acceptance rate can fall when overall submissions grow dramatically. -
Stricter Review Criteria
Some authors reported that borderline or “incremental” improvements were not enough to secure an “accept.” This is indicative of higher standards for novelty, experimental proof, or conceptual contribution. -
Varied (and Possibly Inconsistent) Review Outcomes
The peer-review process can be influenced by area chairs and meta-reviewers, who reconcile multiple reviewer comments. Even a majority of “accept” scores does not always guarantee a final acceptance, especially when the conference targets a certain acceptance ratio.
Implications for Researchers
-
Plan Submissions Carefully
Researchers counting on IJCNN as a reliable backup venue should now view it as a more competitive conference. It is no longer the guaranteed “last bus” for easy acceptance. -
Ensure Strong Novelty and Rigor
With the acceptance rate potentially dropping near or below 40%, papers must demonstrate more than incremental improvements. Strengthen your methodology, run thorough experiments, and clearly articulate novel contributions. -
Stay Updated on Other Venues
Since some graduate programs require at least one publication in a recognized conference, prospective authors may need alternative submission strategies. Conferences like ICIC or SMC (depending on your field) could be next in line, but be aware that some of these venues only index oral presentations or have other specific requirements. -
Manage Graduation Timelines
If you are depending on IJCNN acceptance for your graduation timeline, it may be prudent to have a “Plan B.” Monitor other deadlines and factor in the risk that resubmissions or extended revisions might be required.
Looking Ahead
Despite this year’s changes, IJCNN remains an important forum for neural network and AI-related research. However, authors who traditionally saw it as a more forgiving publication outlet should adjust their expectations. The new standards may elevate the conference’s prestige, but they also pose fresh challenges to junior researchers.
As the community processes these shifts, stories continue to emerge: both of surprising rejections and unexpected acceptances. The ultimate lesson? Researchers should bolster their manuscripts to meet higher scientific and editorial standards. Whether you are aiming for IJCNN or another conference, the era of “content-complete papers automatically getting in” might be coming to a close.
Conclusion
For anyone planning to submit to IJCNN 2026 or beyond, take note: the bar has been raised. Strive to make your work stand out, provide substantial novelty, and demonstrate rigorous evaluations. While this may be stressful for students who need publications to graduate, it also nudges the broader research community toward stronger, more impactful contributions.
In the end, the shift in IJCNN’s acceptance rate sends a clear signal: the days of a wide-open acceptance door appear to be waning, and the neural network community is raising the bar to maintain quality and credibility, much like other top-tier AI venues.
You are more than welcome to Register (verified or anonymous) to Join the Discussion
(No personal identities are disclosed; user quotes are paraphrased for clarity and brevity.)
-
This year, the effective number of submissions of IJCNN is around 5,000+.
“All Neural Network roads lead to Rome” — this year’s IJCNN slogan is really clever. From the early stages of submission, the PC (Program Committee) had already been motivating ACs, anticipating that the IJCNN acceptance rate would align with that of top conferences.
For those whose supervisors don’t reimburse for “CCF-C” (a conference ranking system widely adopted in China) conferences, you might have some questions about the registration fee. From what I know, last year one registration ($915) could cover two papers (provided the same author is registering), and additional charges only started from the third paper.
