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>
1---2name: iclr-review-process3description: Use when explaining or planning around the ICLR review process, including OpenReview public review, AC/SAC roles, reviewer questions, discussion, revisions, final recommendations, and ethics escalation. Use when deciding whether to reply publicly or privately, how a permanently visible review thread shapes strategy, when to upload an allowed revision, or when to escalate a defective review to the AC for the current cycle.4---56# ICLR Review Process78Use this to plan strategy around ICLR's OpenReview process. Reopen the current Reviewer Guide and9Author Guide before advising on timelines, visibility, or revision permissions.1011## Process model1213- Submissions are reviewed double-blind on OpenReview.14- Reviews evaluate contribution, correctness, empirical/theoretical support, clarity, and value to15 the ICLR community.16- Authors can respond in discussion; current-cycle rules determine whether and how revised PDFs or17 supplementary files may be uploaded.18- Reviewers may update their recommendations after discussion; ACs synthesize reviews, comments,19 and paper fit for the final decision.20- Some comments are public, while others can be restricted by audience. Visibility affects tone,21 specificity, and what should be escalated privately.22- Ethics or conduct concerns can move outside ordinary score negotiation.2324## Author strategy2526- Treat the AC as the decision reader. Help them see which objections are resolved and which remain.27- Do not chase every score. Resolve the few issues that change acceptability.28- Use revisions only when they clarify, correct, or support existing claims.29- Keep public comments short, factual, and civil; do not accuse reviewers publicly.30- Use official confidential paths for abusive reviews, severe review defects, conflicts, or suspected31 integrity issues.3233## How public reviews change strategy3435ICLR pioneered fully open review: submissions, reviews, scores, author responses, and final36decisions remain on OpenReview permanently, and community members may post comments. This visibility37changes the calculus at every stage.3839| Visibility property | Strategic consequence | Failure mode it punishes |40| --- | --- | --- |41| Reviews are public forever | Reply as if future citers will read it | Defensive or rude rebuttals |42| Scores are visible | Address the objection behind the score, not the digit | Score-haggling that clutters the thread |43| Community can comment | A "this is just X" post can appear | Weak novelty framing left unguarded |44| Decisions are archived | The meta-review must match your final PDF | Quietly changing claims after acceptance |4546## Worked vignette4748A submission on an alignment objective gets two borderline reviews and one negative. Instead of49arguing all three, the authors identify the one concern the AC will weigh: whether the objective50generalizes beyond the tuned prompt set. They post a public reply with a held-out-prompt table and51upload an allowed revision. One reviewer's updated, still-public review raises the score, and the52AC's meta-review cites the resolved concern.5354## Reviewer-pushback patterns5556- "Reviewer is hostile in public." Stay factual; flag genuine abuse confidentially to the AC.57- "Revision not allowed yet." Check the current cycle's upload window before promising a new PDF.58- "Score did not move." A fixed score can still accept if the AC sees the core objection resolved.5960## Output format6162```text63[Stage] pre-review / reviews released / discussion / final recommendation / decision64[Decision reader] reviewer / AC / SAC / PC65[Best action] reply / revise / provide evidence / escalate / wait66[Visibility] public / restricted / confidential67[Rationale] <why this action fits ICLR process>68```69
brycewang-stanford