This year, ML4H is also introducing a new shared submission system program that allows other health-themed venues occurring around the same time as ML4H to accept submissions through ML4H rather than by building their own submission and review platform.
We are piloting the shared submission system with the NeurIPS workshop,"Machine learning from ground truth: New medical imaging datasets for unsolved medical problems". Under this program, authors who submit to the ML4H extended abstract track on HotCRP will have the option to select whether they would like their paper to be considered for acceptance to the workshop in addition to ML4H. The reviews and meta-reviews will be shared across ML4H and the participating workshop, but ML4H and the workshop will make separate acceptance decisions tailored to the unique goals and themes of each event.
We believe sharing submission systems in this way will offer several benefits to workshop organizers and authors alike. In particular, sharing submission systems allows health-themed workshops at NeurIPS to benefit from our tried-and-tested submission / review system at no cost to them. For authors, this system means that our extended review process, which for the first time includes a full-length author rebuttal and reviewer discussion period, will apply not only to ML4H but also to participating workshops.
What types of papers can be submitted to the “Machine learning from ground truth” workshop?
Please refer to the following workshop's website "Machine learning from ground truth: New medical imaging datasets for unsolved medical problems" for examples of encouraged and discouraged submissions.
Where in HotCRP do I indicate I want my submission to be considered for the “Machine learning from ground truth” workshop?
In an extended abstract track submission, you will see the following question near the top of the submission form:
Simply select “Yes,” and your submission will be included!
Can I submit to the ML4H proceedings track and the workshop?
Only submissions to ML4H’s extended abstract track can elect to be considered for participating workshops. Papers accepted to the ML4H proceedings track are archival, and dual submissions are not allowed. However, because both the workshop and the ML4H extended abstract track are non-archival, works can be submitted and accepted to both events without issue.
If I want to submit to the “Machine learning from ground truth” workshop, how should I format my submission?
All submissions must follow the ML4H style guidelines and policies, and will be reviewed by ML4H reviewers who are unaware of whether the submission is under consideration for multiple venues.
Can I submit only to the “Machine learning from ground truth” workshop?
In order to submit to participating workshops, authors must submit to the ML4H extended abstract track -- e.g., there is not a “workshop-only” track to which authors can submit. After decisions are made, however, authors can withdraw from ML4H or the workshop if they so desire, of course.
How will reviews be shared between ML4H and the participating workshop?
Reviews and meta-reviews will be shared, but final acceptance decisions will be made separately. Reviewers and meta-reviewers will be instructed to provide general feedback and numerical scores _in addition to ML4H-specific final recommendations_. In this way, the shared reviews and meta-reviews will still be useful for workshop decision committees.
How will information be released to me about reviews, meta-reviews, and decisions?
Reviews and meta-reviews will be released through HotCRP in the same way for ML4H-only submissions and submissions under joint consideration. Decisions will be communicated independently for participating workshops and ML4H proper. Note that there may be a slight delay in the release of ML4H final meta-reviews and decisions as compared to workshop-specific decisions (e.g., you may hear a final decision from a workshop prior to your meta-review being released for ML4H). This _does not mean that your meta-review / post-rebuttal reviews were not taken into consideration._ Final meta-reviews and post-rebuttal updated reviews are shared with workshop decision committees prior to their decisions being made; however, as they are smaller, they can make decisions faster than ML4H’s general track can, so this discrepancy is expected and normal.
For questions or feedback please contact us at email@example.com. In particular, if participating in this system in future years is of interest to you, or if you can think of other ways ML4H can effectively collaborate with your health-focused event, contact us!. We’re eager to discuss new ways to improve all ML for health and biomedical themed events.