iclr-review-process

ICLR Review Process

Use this to plan strategy around ICLR's OpenReview process. Reopen the current Reviewer Guide and

Author Guide before advising on timelines, visibility, or revision permissions.

Process model

• Submissions are reviewed double-blind on OpenReview.
• Reviews evaluate contribution, correctness, empirical/theoretical support, clarity, and value to

the ICLR community.

• Authors can respond in discussion; current-cycle rules determine whether and how revised PDFs or

supplementary files may be uploaded.

• Reviewers may update their recommendations after discussion; ACs synthesize reviews, comments,

and paper fit for the final decision.

• Some comments are public, while others can be restricted by audience. Visibility affects tone,

specificity, and what should be escalated privately.

• Ethics or conduct concerns can move outside ordinary score negotiation.

Author strategy

• Treat the AC as the decision reader. Help them see which objections are resolved and which remain.
• Do not chase every score. Resolve the few issues that change acceptability.
• Use revisions only when they clarify, correct, or support existing claims.
• Keep public comments short, factual, and civil; do not accuse reviewers publicly.
• Use official confidential paths for abusive reviews, severe review defects, conflicts, or suspected

integrity issues.

How public reviews change strategy

ICLR pioneered fully open review: submissions, reviews, scores, author responses, and final

decisions remain on OpenReview permanently, and community members may post comments. This visibility

changes the calculus at every stage.

| Visibility property | Strategic consequence | Failure mode it punishes |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Reviews are public forever | Reply as if future citers will read it | Defensive or rude rebuttals |

| Scores are visible | Address the objection behind the score, not the digit | Score-haggling that clutters the thread |

| Community can comment | A "this is just X" post can appear | Weak novelty framing left unguarded |

| Decisions are archived | The meta-review must match your final PDF | Quietly changing claims after acceptance |

Worked vignette

A submission on an alignment objective gets two borderline reviews and one negative. Instead of

arguing all three, the authors identify the one concern the AC will weigh: whether the objective

generalizes beyond the tuned prompt set. They post a public reply with a held-out-prompt table and

upload an allowed revision. One reviewer's updated, still-public review raises the score, and the

AC's meta-review cites the resolved concern.

Reviewer-pushback patterns

• "Reviewer is hostile in public." Stay factual; flag genuine abuse confidentially to the AC.
• "Revision not allowed yet." Check the current cycle's upload window before promising a new PDF.
• "Score did not move." A fixed score can still accept if the AC sees the core objection resolved.

Output format

[Stage] pre-review / reviews released / discussion / final recommendation / decision
[Decision reader] reviewer / AC / SAC / PC
[Best action] reply / revise / provide evidence / escalate / wait
[Visibility] public / restricted / confidential
[Rationale] <why this action fits ICLR process>