ICML Anonymized Git Repos for Rebuttals OK?

🔑 Enhanced Key Takeaways

• •ICML's double-blind review policy explicitly mandates that authors must not reveal their identity, and while anonymous repositories are a common workaround, they are frequently scrutinized by Area Chairs for potential 'de-anonymization' risks if metadata or specific coding styles are identifiable.
• •The use of platforms like anonymous.4open.science is not officially endorsed by ICML; rather, it is a community-adopted practice that exists in a regulatory gray area, often tolerated provided the repository does not contain identifiable information such as author names, affiliations, or links to personal GitHub profiles.
• •Recent conference guidelines have increasingly emphasized that supplementary material provided during the rebuttal phase must adhere to the same strict anonymity standards as the original submission, leading to a trend where conferences are moving toward centralized, conference-managed hosting solutions to mitigate security risks.

🔮 Future ImplicationsAI analysis grounded in cited sources

⏳ Timeline