ICML Author Removal [D]

Our take

Navigating authorship changes in academic papers can be challenging, especially after an acceptance. In this case, it seems you took the right steps by communicating with the Program Committee (PC) chairs and securing written consent from your coauthors. However, the reversal of their decision highlights a strict policy that may not accommodate unique situations. While withdrawing your paper may feel like a loss, consider discussing the issue with the chairs again, emphasizing the importance of your coauthors' contributions.

The distance between a robotaxi recall and an academic authorship dispute might seem vast, but the underlying question is identical: what happens when institutional policy overrides individual circumstances? This week, we are watching that tension surface across sectors. Google's decision to embed Gemini-powered dictation into Gboard Google adds Gemini-powered Dictation to Gboard, which could be bad news for dictation startups could reshape entire product categories overnight. TikTok's systematic conversion of its discovery engine into a transaction layer [TikTok now wants to be the place you book the trip you just saw on TikTok](/post/tiktok-now-wants-to-be-the-place-you-book-the-trip-you-just--cmp2y3xyf00sjp2q5j7r39ww6] shows how centralized decisions can quietly reshape the landscape for smaller players. And now, a PhD student's fraught experience with ICML's author removal policy reminds us that even in academia, the same power dynamic holds — institutions set the rules, and individuals absorb the consequences.

Here is what happened, in brief. The student added industry coauthors who contributed through discussions and written feedback but did not secure explicit consent before the abstract deadline. After that window closed, the coauthors' employer could no longer grant internal approval, and they requested removal. The student contacted programme chairs in January, obtained written confirmation

PhD student. Need advice.

After the ICML abstract deadline, industry coauthors asked to be removed, they missed their employer's internal approval window. They had contributed (discussions and written feedback) but I hadn't explicitly asked before adding them.

January: wrote to PC chairs, got written confirmation from all coauthors, got explicit written approval. Chairs said they'd implement.

Never happened. Paper accepted four months later with original author list. At camera-ready we followed up. Chairs reversed: blanket policy, no exceptions, keep the list or withdraw.

What do you think about this situation? I don't want to withdraw my paper, given that Neurips deadline has passed. What is most likely to happen, and any advice?

Thanks for the help!

submitted by /u/Prize_Hospital6525
[link] [comments]

Read on the original site

Open the publisher's page for the full experience

View original article →