Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Paper Copilot
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
CSPaper

CSPaper: review sidekick

Go to CCFDDL
Go to CSRankings
Go to OpenReview
  1. Home
  2. Peer Review in Computer Science: good, bad & broken
  3. Data Mining & Database
  4. KDD 2025 2nd-round Review Results: How Did Your Paper Do?

KDD 2025 2nd-round Review Results: How Did Your Paper Do?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Data Mining & Database
kdd2025rebuttal
24 Posts 11 Posters 1.3k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • rootR Offline
    rootR Offline
    root
    wrote last edited by
    #21

    Stats from official email:

    The Research Track of KDD 2025 (February Cycle) received 1988 submissions, with an overall acceptance rate of ~18.4%. All submissions received at least three reviews, while most had four or five. Area Chairs provided meta-reviews and preliminary recommendations, which were deliberated further by the Senior Area Chairs and decided on by the Program Chairs.

    ...

    A submission rejected from the Research Track may not be resubmitted within 12 months to the KDD Research Track (i.e., the earliest resubmission date of your paper to the KDD research track is February 2026).

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • JoanneJ Offline
      JoanneJ Offline
      Joanne
      wrote last edited by
      #22

      Thanks for the information. Especially the resubmission restriction. Something to watch out for when planning next steps.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • JoanneJ Offline
        JoanneJ Offline
        Joanne
        wrote last edited by
        #23

        KDD 2025 (February Cycle) – What the Score Patterns Reveal

        After combing through 22 self-reported results, three consistent patterns jump out:

        • All-3’s are not lethal. Several papers with a flat 3-3 profile survived because nobody down-voted hard and the Area Chair (AC) was on their side.
        • 4–2 vs 3–3 is still a coin-flip. A spiky 4–2 pair can trump steady 3–3s, yet clean consistency sometimes wins when the AC trusts uniform support.
        • Reviewer kindness matters. A single upgrade (e.g., Technical 3 → 4) in the last round carried borderline submissions over the line.

        Who Actually Got In? – Mini Score Sheet

        Alias Final Mean (N / T) Earlier Lows Verdict
        author 1 #1 3.6 / 4.0 early 3-3-4 mix ✅ Accept
        author 1 #2 3.6 / 3.4 weaker T ✅ Accept
        author 2 ≈ 3.2 / 2.8 one reviewer gave 2 / 2 ✅ Accept — “kind-hearted AC”
        author 3 3.0 / 3.0 flat all-3’s ✅ Accept
        author 4 3.0 / 3.0 two negative votes (2 / 2) ✅ Accept
        author 5 3.4 / 4.0 T started 3-3-2-2-2 ✅ Accept — generous reviewer bumped T to 4

        Messages from this Small Sample

        1. ≈ 3.0 averages can pass — the AC’s veto (positive or negative) is the real gatekeeper.
        2. One low score plus a confident critique can still sink you — numbers alone aren’t everything.
        3. Polite, point-by-point rebuttals can move scores, though not as often as we’d like.

        How's your scores? We will make a new pattern after you share with us your.

        C 1 Reply Last reply
        1
        • JoanneJ Joanne

          KDD 2025 (February Cycle) – What the Score Patterns Reveal

          After combing through 22 self-reported results, three consistent patterns jump out:

          • All-3’s are not lethal. Several papers with a flat 3-3 profile survived because nobody down-voted hard and the Area Chair (AC) was on their side.
          • 4–2 vs 3–3 is still a coin-flip. A spiky 4–2 pair can trump steady 3–3s, yet clean consistency sometimes wins when the AC trusts uniform support.
          • Reviewer kindness matters. A single upgrade (e.g., Technical 3 → 4) in the last round carried borderline submissions over the line.

          Who Actually Got In? – Mini Score Sheet

          Alias Final Mean (N / T) Earlier Lows Verdict
          author 1 #1 3.6 / 4.0 early 3-3-4 mix ✅ Accept
          author 1 #2 3.6 / 3.4 weaker T ✅ Accept
          author 2 ≈ 3.2 / 2.8 one reviewer gave 2 / 2 ✅ Accept — “kind-hearted AC”
          author 3 3.0 / 3.0 flat all-3’s ✅ Accept
          author 4 3.0 / 3.0 two negative votes (2 / 2) ✅ Accept
          author 5 3.4 / 4.0 T started 3-3-2-2-2 ✅ Accept — generous reviewer bumped T to 4

          Messages from this Small Sample

          1. ≈ 3.0 averages can pass — the AC’s veto (positive or negative) is the real gatekeeper.
          2. One low score plus a confident critique can still sink you — numbers alone aren’t everything.
          3. Polite, point-by-point rebuttals can move scores, though not as often as we’d like.

          How's your scores? We will make a new pattern after you share with us your.

          C Offline
          C Offline
          cocktailfreedom
          Super Users
          wrote last edited by
          #24

          @Joanne said in KDD 2025 2nd-round Review Results: How Did Your Paper Do?:

          KDD 2025 (February Cycle) – What the Score Patterns Reveal

          After combing through 22 self-reported results, three consistent patterns jump out:

          • All-3’s are not lethal. Several papers with a flat 3-3 profile survived because nobody down-voted hard and the Area Chair (AC) was on their side.
          • 4–2 vs 3–3 is still a coin-flip. A spiky 4–2 pair can trump steady 3–3s, yet clean consistency sometimes wins when the AC trusts uniform support.
          • Reviewer kindness matters. A single upgrade (e.g., Technical 3 → 4) in the last round carried borderline submissions over the line.

          Who Actually Got In? – Mini Score Sheet

          Alias Final Mean (N / T) Earlier Lows Verdict
          author 1 #1 3.6 / 4.0 early 3-3-4 mix ✅ Accept
          author 1 #2 3.6 / 3.4 weaker T ✅ Accept
          author 2 ≈ 3.2 / 2.8 one reviewer gave 2 / 2 ✅ Accept — “kind-hearted AC”
          author 3 3.0 / 3.0 flat all-3’s ✅ Accept
          author 4 3.0 / 3.0 two negative votes (2 / 2) ✅ Accept
          author 5 3.4 / 4.0 T started 3-3-2-2-2 ✅ Accept — generous reviewer bumped T to 4

          Messages from this Small Sample

          1. ≈ 3.0 averages can pass — the AC’s veto (positive or negative) is the real gatekeeper.
          2. One low score plus a confident critique can still sink you — numbers alone aren’t everything.
          3. Polite, point-by-point rebuttals can move scores, though not as often as we’d like.

          How's your scores? We will make a new pattern after you share with us your.

          Thanks for sharing! mine got rejected though -- mean T score 2.5-ish

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          Reply
          • Reply as topic
          Log in to reply
          • Oldest to Newest
          • Newest to Oldest
          • Most Votes


          • 1
          • 2
          • Login

          • Don't have an account? Register

          • Login or register to search.
          © 2025 CSPaper.org Sidekick of Peer Reviews
          Debating the highs and lows of peer review in computer science.
          • First post
            Last post
          0
          • Categories
          • Recent
          • Tags
          • Popular
          • World
          • Paper Copilot