[ICML 2026] Scores increased and then decreased!! [D]
Summary
A researcher discusses their ICML 2026 paper review experience where a reviewer increased their score during rebuttal but then decreased it again, expressing concern about rejection prospects.
Similar Articles
ICML Position Track: Want Better ML Reviews? Stop Asking Nicely and Start Incentivizing with a Credit System [D]
This position paper proposes a credit system for ML conferences to incentivize quality reviewing by awarding points for good behavior and allowing redemption for perks.
Why doesn't the ML research community limit the number of submissions per author? [D]
A researcher questions why the ML community doesn't limit submissions per author to manage review quality, citing successful practices in other fields like Security and Computer Architecture.
A Simple Solution to Improve Broken Peer Review System at AI Conferences [R]
A proposal to fix reciprocal reviewing in AI conferences by splitting authors into two halves to remove incentives for unfair rejections.
Are we optimizing AI research for acceptance rather than lasting value? [D]
A researcher critiques how AI conference acceptance culture prioritizes satisfying reviewers over producing work with lasting value, noting the expectation of extensive evaluations that are rarely verified by others.
MICCAI 2026 Decisions [D]
A community discussion thread for sharing and consolidating early acceptance, rebuttal, and rejection decisions for the MICCAI 2026 conference.