•1 min read•from Machine Learning
[R] ICML Anonymized git repos for rebuttal
Our take
In the realm of academic publishing, clarity and transparency are paramount, especially during the rebuttal phase. Anonymized git repositories, like those found at https://anonymous.4open.science/, can provide valuable supplementary figures and code to enhance the clarity of your arguments. However, it's essential to ensure that submitting additional graphs aligns with existing policies. If you're considering this approach, it’s wise to verify guidelines to avoid any potential issues. Engaging thoughtfully in this process can strengthen your contributions and foster constructive discussions.
A number of the papers I'm reviewing for have submitted additional figures and code through anonymized git repos (e.g. https://anonymous.4open.science/) to help supplement their rebuttal. Is this against any policy?
I'm considering submitting additional graphs during the discussion phase for clarity, and would like to make sure that won't cause any issues
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- Neurips : Pushing anonymous repo after rebuttal [D]Hi everyone, I have a question about NeurIPS submission/review rules and anonymous code repositories. Suppose a paper was submitted before the deadline, and the anonymous code repo is linked as supplementary/reproducibility material. After the deadline, we notice that one label/name in the paper is misleading or mislabeled. The numerical results and metrics are unchanged, but the corrected label slightly affects how the results should be interpreted. Would it be acceptable for the anonymous repo README to show the reproduced metrics with the correct labels, with a minimal clarification such as “labels corrected; numbers unchanged”? Or could this be considered an impermissible post-deadline correction/revision of the paper? I am not talking about uploading a corrected PDF to the repo, changing results, or adding new experiments. The idea would only be to document the reproduction table with the correct labels in the README, while keeping the repo fully anonymous. Has anyone seen guidance from NeurIPS / OpenReview / ACs on this kind of situation? What is the safest way to handle it during review — README clarification, OpenReview comment, rebuttal only ? Thanks! submitted by /u/Lazy-Cream1315 [link] [comments]
- How do you anonymize code for a conference submission? [D]Hi everyone, I have a question about anonymizing code for conference submissions. I’m submitting an AI/ML paper to a conference and would like to include the code, but the repository needs to be anonymized. In this situation, is it common to create a separate anonymous GitHub account, upload the code there, and then, if the paper is accepted, move it to your official GitHub account later? I’d really appreciate any guidance. Thanks! submitted by /u/Terrible-Chicken-426 [link] [comments]