The decision to publish ICPR results without a rebuttal phase leaves authors in an uncomfortable position, and that discomfort is entirely justified. For a conference that has historically allowed researchers to respond to reviews, this change removes one of the few mechanisms for correcting misunderstandings or addressing factual errors before a final verdict. The unease expressed by the community member who posted this discussion is not overreaction, it is a rational response to a process that just became less transparent.
What this means in practical terms is straightforward. If your paper receives a negative decision, you will have no opportunity to clarify a reviewer's misinterpretation of your method, no chance to point out that a cited baseline was misapplied, and no avenue to explain why a suggested experiment was already in your supplementary materials. The burden of clarity now falls entirely on the initial submission. For authors who have been through rebuttal processes before, this feels like a step backward, because it removes a layer of accountability from the review process. The conference organizers likely have their reasons, perhaps to speed up decisions or reduce reviewer workload, but the trade-off is a system that feels less fair to the people whose work is being judged.
We think the community's response here is the right one: use this thread to share experiences, compare outcomes, and build a collective understanding of how decisions are being made. If enough authors report consistent patterns of errors or unfair rejections, that data becomes a lever for future conversations with the program committee. The absence of a rebuttal does not mean the community should stay silent. It means the conversation moves from individual appeals to shared observations.
For now, check your results when they arrive, note any comments that seem off, and contribute to this discussion. If your paper is accepted, celebrate. If it is not, remember that a single conference decision, even one without a rebuttal, does not invalidate the work you did. The most productive response is to document what happened, share it with peers, and let the pattern of feedback inform where you submit next.