•1 min read•from Machine Learning
[D] How are reviewers able to get away without providing acknowledgement in ICML 2026?
Our take
The conclusion of the author-reviewer discussion period for ICML 2026 raises important questions about the acknowledgement process. With the deadline passed, it's concerning to see a lack of acknowledgment surrounding reviews, especially when reviewers change scores significantly post-rebuttal. One reviewer’s decision to maintain a score despite acknowledging resolution of concerns could severely impact the submission's fate. The absence of communication following an AC confidential message further complicates the situation, leaving authors questioning their standing. How will these dynamics affect their chances moving forward?
Today officially marks the end of the author-reviewer discussion period. The acknowledgement deadline has already passed by over 3 days and our submission still hasn't got 1/3 acknowledgement. One of the other acknowledgements picked the option A (fully resolved) for all the weaknesses they pointed out and just commented "I intend to keep the score unchanged". What's happening here?
We were sitting at 3/3/3 and after the rebuttal, one of the reviewers flipped to a score of 4 with confidence 5.
We dropped an AC confidential message after the acknowledgement deadline but did not receive any response. I believe this has lead to a disadvantage for us since that reviewer may only interact during the AC-reviewer discussion and there wont be any input from us to influence the decision at all.
With a 4/3/3 in this specific scenario where one reviewer accepted we resolved all their concerns but did not bump the score and the other did not acknowledge the rebuttal, did our chances get worse than before?
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- [ICML 2026] Extending the deadline for reviewer final justifications while not extending for Author-AC comments was a huge mistake [D]Just as the title says, I believe the decision to extend the deadline for reviewers to post their final justifications while not allowing authors to contact their ACs was a big misstep. I have a reviewer who, in their final justification is questioning the reliability of experimental setup and evaluation, as was as the fairness of comparison, issues that were never brought up during the initial review or their response to our rebuttal. It seems as though they were looking for reasons to justify not wanting to move their score from weak accept. It now feels like, despite having otherwise strong reviews that are leaning accept, this review might tank the paper. submitted by /u/undesirable_12 [link] [comments]
- What is the AC guidance for ICML? (Or: ICML qq thread) [D]I heard there is more pressure on the ACs to get final justifications and encourage reviewers to converge to a consensus. Is that true? Full disclosure, I am asking because I am bummed at how quiet the activity on my paper has been. I reviewed 6 papers, where 1 withdrew toward the end of the reviewer-author discussion period. Of the remaining 5, many have an average of 3 or lower, but still ACs have responded on every paper but one (with 2,3,3). They pushed the reviewers to do a final justification, so almost every single final justification is filled out, just one is missing on one of the papers. Meanwhile, I have a 3344....which probably won't get in, but shows some disagreement at least....and there is no movement on my reviewers for writing their final justification. 2 reviewers (3, 4) haven't posted a final justification at all. I wonder if my AC is not bothering to push for discussion. submitted by /u/WhiteBear2018 [link] [comments]
- So Confused about Polarizing ICML Reviews [D]Hi, rebuttals recently finished, and I wanted to share my paper's scores to ask for thoughts on this, and whether this situation is borderline and dependent on the AC. My paper started out as 5 (4), 4 (4), 4 (3), 2 (4). After the rebuttals, I ended up at 5 (4), 5 (4), 5 (3), 2 (5). This makes the average 4.25, with a confidence average of 4. The two 4 reviewers both increased their ratings to 5 and wrote nice Final Justifications (one said they were confident the final version would be a strong submission, the other said all their concerns were resolved). However, the 2 reviewer hated the paper from the start. While some critiques were valid, others were asking for a different paper. I still responded cleanly to them, and their response was even more aggressive. I responded once again, and as expected, they did not change their score and just increased the confidence. They also dropped originality to 1 (all other fields were at 2). Every other reviewer gave us a 4 for originality!! This is my first time submitting to ICML, so I'm wondering how cases like this play out - is one confident negative reviewer enough to sink the ship? Or is it largely a coin flip? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated! submitted by /u/Actual_Creme9905 [link] [comments]
- [D] Dealing with an unprofessional reviewer using fake references and personal attacks in ICML26We are currently facing an ICML 2026 reviewer who lowered the score to a 1 (Confidence 5) while ignoring our rebuttal and relying on fake references and personal insults like "close-minded" and "hostile." Despite my other reviewers giving 5s, this individual is using mathematically nonsensical proofs and making baseless accusations about MIT license/anonymity violations, all while using aggressive formatting and strange syntax errors (e.g., bolding ending with periods like **.). The reviewer is also constantly editing their "PS" section to bait Program Chair attention and bias the discussion phase. I’ve never seen such unprofessionalism in peer review; has anyone successfully had a review discarded or flagged for AC intervention when a reviewer uses demonstrably fraudulent citations and resorts to ad hominem attacks? Note: we got other two as 5 but one is shaking with partially resolved. We are pretty sure I respond each weakness with professional and respectful words in the first rebuttal but in the second, we pointed out the reviewer no relevant references and circular reasoning. He/she seems outrageous… I mean if he/she doesn’t agree we can battle with professionalism but the reviewer is basically living in his / her own mind. submitted by /u/Martinetin_ [link] [comments]