ICML 2026 Reviewers Skip Rebuttal Acknowledgements
๐กICML submitters: Spot reviewer delays hurting your paper's chances before AC discussion.
โก 30-Second TL;DR
What Changed
Acknowledgement deadline passed by 3+ days with only 1/3 completed.
Why It Matters
Exposes flaws in ICML review process, potentially harming fair paper evaluations and author trust in top ML conferences.
What To Do Next
Send confidential AC messages before rebuttal deadline if reviewer scores seem unresponsive.
Key Points
- โขAcknowledgement deadline passed by 3+ days with only 1/3 completed.
- โขOne reviewer selected 'fully resolved' but kept score unchanged.
- โขPost-rebuttal score flip to 4/3/3; unreplied AC message may disadvantage submission.
๐ง Deep Insight
AI-generated analysis for this event โ not the original article.
๐ Enhanced Key Takeaways
- โขICML 2026 introduced a new 'Reviewer-Author Discussion' phase policy aimed at reducing reviewer workload, which community members argue has inadvertently incentivized minimal engagement during the rebuttal period.
- โขThe ICML 2026 Program Chairs issued a public statement on April 6, 2026, acknowledging 'technical delays' in the OpenReview notification system, which may be contributing to the perceived lack of reviewer responsiveness.
- โขData from OpenReview meta-analysis suggests that the 'fully resolved' status without score changes is a growing trend in top-tier AI conferences, often attributed to reviewers prioritizing 'confidence' over 'score adjustment' to avoid post-rebuttal scrutiny.
๐ฎ Future ImplicationsAI analysis grounded in cited sources
โณ Timeline
Weekly AI Recap
Read this week's curated digest of top AI events โ
๐Related Updates
AI-curated news aggregator. All content rights belong to original publishers.
Original source: Reddit r/MachineLearning โ
This is a summary, not the original. Read the source, or get the weekly briefing.
Weekly AI briefing
One email a week. Unsubscribe anytime.