NeurIPS事件发酵，多位学者拒绝出任AC

Core Viewpoint - The NeurIPS Foundation has announced it will no longer accept submissions from U.S.-sanctioned institutions, raising significant concerns about academic freedom and the implications for the research community [6][9][23]. Group 1: Announcement and Reactions - NeurIPS has decided to comply with U.S. sanctions, which prohibits providing services to individuals from sanctioned institutions, including peer review and publishing [6][7]. - This decision has sparked strong reactions from scholars both domestically and internationally, with many expressing dissatisfaction and questioning the impact on open science [2][9][19]. - Prominent Chinese institutions like Tsinghua and Peking University, which contribute significantly to NeurIPS, are reportedly not affected by this policy [7]. Group 2: Implications for Academic Freedom - Scholars have voiced concerns that this policy sets a troubling precedent, potentially affecting the entire research ecosystem and limiting academic freedom [9][19]. - Some academics have shared personal experiences of facing restrictions due to U.S. policies, highlighting the broader implications for international collaboration in research [11][19]. - The Chinese Computer Federation (CCF) has publicly opposed NeurIPS's decision, urging scholars to refrain from providing academic services to the conference [12][14]. Group 3: Historical Context and Future Concerns - The situation has drawn comparisons to past incidents, such as IEEE's experience in 2004, where it faced similar restrictions but later received clarification that peer review activities were protected under the Berman Amendment [23]. - There are concerns that other major conferences like ICML and ICLR may follow suit with similar restrictions, further complicating the landscape of academic publishing [23][24]. - Discussions are ongoing about the potential relocation of the NeurIPS Foundation to avoid U.S. legal constraints, with suggestions of moving to countries like Canada [21][22].