The Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, or NeurIPS, a prominent global conference in the fields of machine learning and computational neuroscience, issued a public apology on Friday regarding a contentious policy in its 2026 submission handbook. The apology came shortly after multiple Chinese federations of technology professionals announced boycotts in response to the policy. “We deeply apologize for the alarm and impact this miscommunication had on our community,” NeurIPS stated on its X account, attributing the error to “miscommunication between the NeurIPS Foundation and our legal team.” The organizers reassured the community that they have “updated the link and clarified the text of our policy,” emphasizing that NeurIPS “welcomes submissions from all compliant institutions and individuals.”
The backlash from Chinese computer scientists and researchers was triggered by a clause in the original handbook indicating that the California-based foundation must adhere to U.S. law. This included a stipulation that NeurIPS was “unable to accept or publish submissions from any Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) list, or any individual or institution that NeurIPS reasonably believes represents or is affiliated with an SDN.” Notably, the SDN list includes 873 Chinese entities, leading to widespread calls for boycotts from China’s scientific community.
On March 25, the China Computer Federation (CCF) condemned the restrictions, asserting that barring submissions from specific institutions politicizes academic exchange and violates fundamental academic principles. The CCF urged NeurIPS to rectify its actions swiftly and restore equal rights for all institutions, calling on Chinese researchers to boycott paper submissions and cease providing services to NeurIPS. The organization warned that failure to address the issue could result in the removal of the conference from its recommended list of international academic forums.
The following day, the Chinese Association of Automation (CAA) echoed these sentiments, criticizing the intertwining of political considerations with academic exchange as a serious deviation from core academic values. Like the CCF, the CAA announced its intention to remove NeurIPS from its recommended conference list.
Simultaneously, the China Society of Image and Graphics expressed strong opposition to the discriminatory clauses targeting certain Chinese institutions, emphasizing that such actions contradict the principles of openness and collaboration fundamental to scientific research. An article from a WeChat account associated with the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST) further criticized NeurIPS for “openly excluding a number of organizations, including Chinese institutions, based on unilateral U.S. sanctions lists.” The article claimed that these actions introduce “political hegemony into academic exchange,” distort fairness, and undermine the global scientific ecosystem.
In a subsequent statement on Friday, CAST announced concrete countermeasures, stating that it would cease accepting funding applications for scholars to attend NeurIPS 2026, redirecting support toward domestic conferences or international events that prioritize openness and fairness. Furthermore, papers accepted by NeurIPS 2026 will not be recognized as representative research outputs in evaluations related to CAST, although their academic value may still be assessed independently by relevant national academic societies.
Despite NeurIPS’s latest statement, skepticism remains among many Chinese netizens. Some expressed that the performance of Chinese scientists should not hinge on recognition from an organization “wearing tinted glasses.” Others interpreted the swift apology from NeurIPS as indicative of a sense of panic, suggesting that without contributions from Chinese researchers, the conference could face challenges in retaining its status as a leading international venue.
The incident highlights the growing intersection of politics and academia, particularly in contexts involving international cooperation. As global research communities navigate these tensions, the situation serves as a reminder of the complexities that can arise when academic exchanges are influenced by geopolitical considerations.
See also
OpenAI’s Rogue AI Safeguards: Decoding the 2025 Safety Revolution
US AI Developments in 2025 Set Stage for 2026 Compliance Challenges and Strategies
Trump Drafts Executive Order to Block State AI Regulations, Centralizing Authority Under Federal Control
California Court Rules AI Misuse Heightens Lawyer’s Responsibilities in Noland Case
Policymakers Urged to Establish Comprehensive Regulations for AI in Mental Health
