•1 min read•from Machine Learning
[D] ICML 2026 Review Discussion
Our take
Welcome to the ICML 2026 Review Discussion! As we unveil the reviews today, let’s take this opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue about our experiences and celebrate the successful evaluations. Remember, the review process can be unpredictable, and it’s vital to recognize that it does not solely define the impact of our research. Together, let’s focus on constructive feedback that enhances our work and fosters growth. Your insights are invaluable, so feel free to share your thoughts and experiences in this open forum.
ICML 2026 reviews will release today (24-March AoE), This thread is open to discuss about reviews and importantly celebrate successful reviews.
Let us all remember that review system is noisy and we all suffer from it and this doesn't define our research impact. Let's all prioritise reviews which enhance our papers. Feel free to discuss your experiences
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- [D] KDD Review DiscussionKDD 2026 (Feb Cycle) reviews will release today (4-April AoE), This thread is open to discuss about reviews and importantly celebrate successful reviews. Let us all remember that review system is noisy and we all suffer from it and this doesn't define our research impact. Let's all prioritise reviews which enhance our papers. Feel free to discuss your experiences submitted by /u/BomsDrag [link] [comments]
- AI/ML Conferences [D]As a fellow ML researcher, I feel disheartened and discouraged after seeing the experiences of people who submitted their work to ICML 2026. Given the sheer number of papers submitted to A* AI/ML conferences, the current review system does not seem to work well. For example, in some cases, papers are rejected despite the authors addressing all reviewers’ concerns, leading to substantial increases in scores. What could be a better way forward to ensure a fair review process? submitted by /u/msgs008 [link] [comments]
- public reviews in conferences [D]Why don't all conferences make reviews public? I find ICLR public reviews to be very useful : - I get an idea of how others in the field think about the work - Makes the publishing process more transparent - Reviewers will potentially spend more effort to avoid public scrutiny Are there any drawbacks in having ICLR-like public reviews? (where the reviewer identifies are masked) Would the community benefit if all conferences released their reviews? submitted by /u/Fit_Schedule5951 [link] [comments]