The confusion on Reddit is completely understandable, and it points to a real friction in how ICML structures its discussion period. A straightforward question arises: can a reviewer still change a score after the official response window closes, especially if they haven't engaged yet? The honest answer is that the timeline is designed to give reviewers room to act, but it does not guarantee they will. The April 7th deadline is the hard stop for final scores, not the moment when all feedback must be locked in. That means a reviewer who has been silent can still revise their score right up to that date, but only if they choose to engage with the rebuttal.
What this reveals is that the discussion period is less about enforcing participation and more about creating an opportunity for meaningful exchange. A reviewer who has not responded is mentioned, along with a comment they plan to answer on Monday. They are right to wonder whether that late reply will matter. In practice, reviewers are human, and their scores often shift after reading a well-argued response. But the system does not compel them to acknowledge or act on every rebuttal. The window is there for authors to make their case, not for reviewers to justify their silence. So the practical takeaway is this: do not assume a missing response means the score is fixed, but do not assume a late answer will change anything either.
The deeper issue here is that the timeline creates a false sense of symmetry. Authors are expected to meet deadlines, respond promptly, and absorb feedback. Reviewers, on the other hand, operate under a looser set of expectations. That asymmetry can feel unfair, especially when a paper's outcome hinges on a reviewer who never engages. But it also means authors should treat the discussion period as a chance to clarify, not to persuade at all costs. The goal is to give reviewers a reason to move the score up, not to force a conversation they are not interested in having.
For anyone navigating this process, the concrete move is to submit your response as early as possible, even if the comment is straightforward. The more time a reviewer has to read and reflect, the more likely they are to act. Waiting until the final days of the discussion period only compresses your own ability to address follow-up questions. And if a reviewer stays silent, that is not a reflection of your work. It is a limitation of the system. Use the time to strengthen what you can control, and accept that the score you see on April 7th is the one you will live with. That is the reality of the timeline, and it is worth planning around it.