•1 min read•from Machine Learning
[ICML 2026] Extending the deadline for reviewer final justifications while not extending for Author-AC comments was a huge mistake [D]
Our take
In the discussion surrounding ICML 2026, a critical oversight has emerged regarding the decision to extend the deadline for reviewer final justifications while restricting author communication with area chairs (ACs). This approach raises concerns about fairness, particularly when reviewers introduce new criticisms, such as questioning the reliability of experimental setups, that were not previously addressed. Such situations can jeopardize a paper's chances of acceptance, especially when strong reviews lean favorably. This decision warrants reconsideration to ensure a balanced and equitable review process.
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.
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- ICML final decisions rant [D]So, ICML accepted ~6.5K of ~24K; obviously, it doesn't mean that all the rejected papers are "bad," and these rejected papers would cascade to NeurIPS, blowing up NeurIPS' total submission count, and this cycle of massive-influx-small-acceptance would repeat on an endless loop. The reviews themselves can be frustratingly inadequate: - "Only 200 benchmarks included; not included didn't-do-this-benchmark" (exaggerated for dramatic effect, sadly not unrealistic) or - "I don't think this paper, that works, is 'novel'" [out of gut feeling?] or - ACs reiterating the exact same points in the initial reviews without reading the rebuttal discussions. (Or at least, it'd seem that way) On top of all this, (from Reddit threads,) it appears that reviewers raising their score need to perform additional tasks of justifying why they're raising their scores -- which seems like a negative reinforcement signal. Also, it's crazy how people can think of an idea, run all experiments, write a coherent acceptance-ready paper, all over the weekend!!! -- isn't the whole point of research is to sit and simmer with the problem? Not sure what the future of conference publishing/reviewing is... it just feels unproductive. Anyway, just wanted to rant before looping into NeurIPS deadline, for yet another possible rejection. Isn't the whole point of publishing to understand long-standing problems? -- rejection nowadays means nothing. [Neither does acceptance?] Have a good weekend, y'all. submitted by /u/CategoryNormal149 [link] [comments]
Tagged with
#natural language processing for spreadsheets#generative AI for data analysis#Excel alternatives for data analysis#rows.com#big data management in spreadsheets#big data performance#ICML#reviewer#deadline#experimental setup#justifications#evaluation#initial review#weak accept#authors#ACs#fairness#rebuttal#strong reviews#comparison