•1 min read•from Machine Learning
What is the AC guidance for ICML? (Or: ICML qq thread) [D]
Our take
In the context of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), the role of Area Chairs (ACs) has evolved, with increased pressure to secure final justifications from reviewers and foster consensus. This shift aims to enhance the review process by ensuring that reviewers articulate their evaluations clearly. While some papers may experience quiet activity during the review phase, it's essential for ACs to encourage dialogue among reviewers.
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.
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- 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]
- ECCV Stupid Reviewer Behavior (Any AC here?) [R]I am looking for guidance as I got 3 reviews 1/3, 4/3 and 4/5 but stupid reviewer 1 rejected my paper and he suggest me to conduct some more experiment and he also said that "he could change his assessment". How is it possible that he will change the rating from 1(Reject) to 4 (Borderline Accept) after rebuttal? As I am answering his all question. But I am confused that putting too much stress and working day and night is helpful or not. Any Area Chair opinion? submitted by /u/Alternative_Art2984 [link] [comments]
- [ICML 2026] Scores increased and then decreased!! [D]hi, one of my reviewers initially gave 4(3). addressed his concerns during the rebuttal. He acknowledged it and increased the score to 5(3) with final justification as well. checked open review randomly now, I can see he reduced it back to 4. am guessing he did this during the AC reviewer discussion? is this a sign of early rejection? My average was 4, which has now reduced to 3.75. do I still have any chance? Any comments would be appreciated. submitted by /u/HelpfulSinger3762 [link] [comments]
Tagged with
#natural language processing for spreadsheets#generative AI for data analysis#Excel alternatives for data analysis#rows.com#financial modeling with spreadsheets#AC#ICML#final justification#reviewers#consensus#submitted paper#review process#pressure#reviewer-author discussion#activity#withdrawn paper#average score#disagreement#reviewer behavior#discussion period