•1 min read•from Machine Learning
[D] ICML Rebuttle Acknowledgement
Our take
Navigating the ICML rebuttal process can be frustrating, especially when reviewers acknowledge your efforts without adjusting their scores. After receiving three out of four acknowledgments, it appears that most reviewers are sticking with their initial positive evaluations, while one remains unresponsive despite your comprehensive revisions and additional experiments. This raises an important question: Is it typical for reviewers to request extensive edits and then provide minimal feedback?
I've received 3 out of 4 acknowledgements, All of them basically are choosing Option A without changing their scores, because their initial scores were already positive. Meanwhile, the 4th reviewer had already given me a 3 and still hasn’t replied.
What frustrates me is that I didn’t just clarify a few points. I ran a lot of additional experiments and wrote proofs to address every request they raised. So is this really how the process is supposed to work? Reviewers can ask for as many edits, experiments, and proofs as they want, and in the end all you get is “thanks for your response” with no score update?
I’m trying to understand whether this is normal or if I just got unlucky.
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- [D] How are reviewers able to get away without providing acknowledgement in ICML 2026?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? submitted by /u/ChaosAdm [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]
- [ICML 2026] Scores increased and then decreased!! [D]hi, one of my reviewers initially gave 4(3). addressed his concerns during the rebuttal. He acknowledged it and increased the score to 5(3) with final justification as well. checked open review randomly now, I can see he reduced it back to 4. am guessing he did this during the AC reviewer discussion? is this a sign of early rejection? My average was 4, which has now reduced to 3.75. do I still have any chance? Any comments would be appreciated. submitted by /u/HelpfulSinger3762 [link] [comments]
- Seems ICML is rejecting MANY unanimous positively rated papers [D]My 4444 (4443 pre-rebuttal) got rejected (as expected). Just copying a reply I wrote a couple of days ago before decisions were out: There seems to be a misalignment in the incentives of this year’s ICML reviews. The rebuttal phase is pushing hard to encourage reviewers to reconsider their scores, which has a good motivation. But in practice, it creates a distorted dynamic. ACs are seeking homogeneous ratings among reviewers. As a reviewer, I feel the pressure to increase my score to avoid prolonged back-and-forth discussions. I would assume there may be many reviewers who are not engaged but raise their scores just to end the discussion. At the same time, reviewers who are initially positive often seem reluctant to update their scores, even after their concerns are addressed. I came across a review that said: “Thank you for the rebuttal. The paper is valuable. The rebuttal addressed all my concerns.” (rephrased to avoid directly locating the paper) Yet the score remained at 4. It now makes me nervous (NOW I KNOW I WAS RIGHT!) since scores are inflated while the conference has a limited capacity. In a few days, we may see MANY uniformly positively rated papers rejected, just like last NeurIPS. I would prefer to roll back to how peer review originally was: reviewers provide honest and independent evaluations; AC assess their quality and consistency; and borderline cases are resolved through AC discussion. The current mechanism feels unnecessarily complex and makes the already bad situation worse. submitted by /u/AffectionateLife5693 [link] [comments]