OPEN LINK ↗
// 50d agoNEWS
Reviewer silence plagues ICML 2026 rebuttal period
An independent researcher navigating the ICML 2026 rebuttal process found themselves in limbo after reviewers promised follow-up questions but went silent with under 48 hours left. Community consensus advises waiting it out, highlighting a common flaw in the conference peer-review system where reviewers claim to have follow-ups to avoid committing to a score change.
// ANALYSIS
The AI conference review system continues to creak under the weight of its own scale, leaving independent researchers uniquely vulnerable to reviewer apathy.
- –Reviewers frequently use the "have follow-up questions" option as a stalling tactic rather than a genuine request for dialogue.
- –Independent researchers without institutional backing or senior PIs lack the guidance to navigate these frustrating, opaque standoffs.
- –The incident underscores a growing community frustration with reviewer professionalism and the "ghosting" phenomenon during critical rebuttal windows.
- –Authors are left with no recourse but to monitor the portal until the deadline, as there's no mechanism to force reviewer engagement.
// TAGS
researchllmconferencepeer-reviewicml
DISCOVERED
50d ago
2026-04-06
PUBLISHED
51d ago
2026-04-06
RELEVANCE
6/ 10
AUTHOR
DifficultyHeavy