<p>I have participated in NIPS, CNS, and COSYNE at least a couple times each. In fact, I have participated in <a href="http://memming.wordpress.com/category/event/conference-event/" rel="nofollow">all 3 last year</a>.</p>

<p>COSYNE is the smallest conference, but it's growing fast. It's a great conference because it has a good balance between experimentalists and theorists. It takes an extended abstract (2 pages). It emphasizes the systems aspect of the brain.</p>

<p>CNS has more physicist/mathematicians (COSYNE and NIPS also have a high number of them, but CNS has the most), and has a feeling of "European" science. The themes are more theory oriented. I heard that it is usually bigger when it's held in Europe (it alternates).</p>

<p>NIPS started half machine learning, half neuroscience a long time ago, but it has been overrun by ML people. But, in recent years, I see more and more computational neuroscience coming back to NIPS. It has a strict double blind reviewing with high rejection rate around 25% for an 8 page full paper (+1 page reference).</p>

<p>Each conference has its own niche, so the impact would depend on your area within computational neuroscience. NIPS is the only one with a full paper, so it tends to be cited more. However, a lot of networking happens in COSYNE and CNS among neuroscientists, so it would definitely have more impact to experimentalists.</p>

<p>Feel free to ask me more questions.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-15T07:10:00.943Z
There is also a stereotype of CNS being more biophysical and Cosyne being more systems-oriented.  (I have never been to CNS)
honi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-15T16:37:45.373Z
2015-05-15T14:30:49.690Z
2015-05-15T14:30:49.690Z
Memming
<p>While Googling, I noticed there are 2 conferences for computational neuroscience: <a href="http://www.cosyne.org/c/index.php?title=Cosyne_14">Cosyne</a> and <a href="http://www.cnsorg.org/cns-2014-quebec-city">CNS</a>.</p>

<p>My questions are:<br>
1) What are these conferences' differences in terms of material &amp; impact/size?<br>
2) Are there any other major computational neuroscience conferences I missed?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-11T04:21:23.147Z
You missed what is perhaps the premier one, [NIPS](https://nips.cc/Conferences/2013/)
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-11T04:33:49.830Z
(it mixes in some ML and AI, too, so it's not "pure" computational neuroscience, but you'll find all of the big names there)
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-11T17:00:08.893Z
Got it! Can you tell me anything about CNS/Cosyne?
DankMasterDan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-11T17:08:49.793Z
I have no clue about those two, unfortunately.  They both look like they have some big names.  Cosyne looks like it had more program chairs in 2011 that I recognized (Daniel Wolpert, for example is a superstar in Bayesian coding, etc.).  The fact that CNS draws Christof Koch as a keynote speaker should speak for itself!
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-11T17:10:41.197Z
Two notable names that I'm not seeing are G. Bart Ermentrout and Larry Abbott, but that doesn't mean they weren't participating.
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-12T03:07:36.670Z
@ChuckSherrington I don't think your characterization of NIPS is accurate, it doesn't 'mix in some ML and AI' it is one of the two premier ML conferences, which might mix in a little bit of comp neuro. In reality, I think the typical comp neuro lab would have a very difficult time trying to publish there. For instance, take a look at the [2013 proceedings](http://papers.nips.cc/book/advances-in-neural-information-processing-systems-26-2013).
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-12T07:28:41.563Z
@Artem I will take a closer look. The people I knew that went had interests that sat on a murky manifold of all of those areas.  It's possible I oversold it.
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-12T07:34:29.100Z
(I will freely admit you're probably much more steeped in these areas than me)
Chuck Sherrington
<computational-modeling><theoretical-neuroscience>
Cosyne vs CNS conferences for Computational Neuroscience?
DankMasterDan
# Cosyne vs CNS conferences for Computational Neuroscience?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-02-11)

While Googling, I noticed there are 2 conferences for computational neuroscience: [Cosyne](http://www.cosyne.org/c/index.php?title=Cosyne_14) and [CNS](http://www.cnsorg.org/cns-2014-quebec-city).

My questions are:  
1) What are these conferences' differences in terms of material & impact/size?  
2) Are there any other major computational neuroscience conferences I missed?

Thanks!

**Tags:** computational-modeling, theoretical-neuroscience

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You missed what is perhaps the premier one, [NIPS](https://nips.cc/Conferences/2013/)  
> **username_1**: (it mixes in some ML and AI, too, so it's not "pure" computational neuroscience, but you'll find all of the big names there)  
> **username_0**: Got it! Can you tell me anything about CNS/Cosyne?  
> **username_1**: I have no clue about those two, unfortunately.  They both look like they have some big names.  Cosyne looks like it had more program chairs in 2011 that I recognized (Daniel Wolpert, for example is a superstar in Bayesian coding, etc.).  The fact that CNS draws Christof Koch as a keynote speaker should speak for itself!  
> **username_1**: Two notable names that I'm not seeing are G. Bart Ermentrout and Larry Abbott, but that doesn't mean they weren't participating.  
> **username_2**: @ChuckSherrington I don't think your characterization of NIPS is accurate, it doesn't 'mix in some ML and AI' it is one of the two premier ML conferences, which might mix in a little bit of comp neuro. In reality, I think the typical comp neuro lab would have a very difficult time trying to publish there. For instance, take a look at the [2013 proceedings](http://papers.nips.cc/book/advances-in-neural-information-processing-systems-26-2013).  
> **username_1**: @Artem I will take a closer look. The people I knew that went had interests that sat on a murky manifold of all of those areas.  It's possible I oversold it.  
> **username_1**: (I will freely admit you're probably much more steeped in these areas than me)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-02-15. Score: 7

I have participated in NIPS, CNS, and COSYNE at least a couple times each. In fact, I have participated in [all 3 last year](http://memming.wordpress.com/category/event/conference-event/).

COSYNE is the smallest conference, but it's growing fast. It's a great conference because it has a good balance between experimentalists and theorists. It takes an extended abstract (2 pages). It emphasizes the systems aspect of the brain.

CNS has more physicist/mathematicians (COSYNE and NIPS also have a high number of them, but CNS has the most), and has a feeling of "European" science. The themes are more theory oriented. I heard that it is usually bigger when it's held in Europe (it alternates).

NIPS started half machine learning, half neuroscience a long time ago, but it has been overrun by ML people. But, in recent years, I see more and more computational neuroscience coming back to NIPS. It has a strict double blind reviewing with high rejection rate around 25% for an 8 page full paper (+1 page reference).

Each conference has its own niche, so the impact would depend on your area within computational neuroscience. NIPS is the only one with a full paper, so it tends to be cited more. However, a lot of networking happens in COSYNE and CNS among neuroscientists, so it would definitely have more impact to experimentalists.

Feel free to ask me more questions.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: There is also a stereotype of CNS being more biophysical and Cosyne being more systems-oriented.  (I have never been to CNS)  

---

