# Iclr Submission

> Use when auditing an ICLR main-conference submission for OpenReview readiness, double-blind anonymity, page limits, reciprocal reviewing, LLM-use disclosure, dual-submission policy, supplementary material, and desk-reject risk.

- Skill: `brycewang-stanford/iclr-submission` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add brycewang-stanford/iclr-submission`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/brycewang-stanford/iclr-submission/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- Author: brycewang-stanford (https://skillmd.com/u/brycewang-stanford)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/brycewang-stanford/iclr-submission

---


# ICLR Submission

Use this for an ICLR main-conference submission audit. Reopen the current CFP, Author Guide,
OpenReview submission form, template, Code of Ethics, Code of Conduct, and LLM policy before giving
deadline-ready advice.

## Submission audit

- Confirm the target is the ICLR main conference, not a workshop, Tiny Paper, blog, affinity event,
  or later publication track.
- Check that all authors have complete OpenReview profiles and that the author list follows the
  current freeze/change windows.
- Verify that the abstract is substantive and non-duplicative before the abstract deadline; do not
  rely on a placeholder.
- Confirm use of the current ICLR LaTeX template and current page-limit rules. ICLR 2027 caps the
  main text at 9 pages at submission (10 during discussion and for camera-ready), strictly enforced —
  over-length main text is desk-rejected. References are unlimited and outside the cap; appendices
  after the bibliography are unlimited, and reviewers need not read them.
- Inspect anonymity in the PDF, appendices, supplementary ZIP, code, data, demos, links, repository
  metadata, comments, acknowledgments, and file names.
- Confirm reciprocal-reviewing and quota compliance for the author team, both of which desk-reject
  in ICLR 2027 and both of which are decided **at the abstract deadline**, not later:
  - every author on 3+ submissions must review at least 6 papers, and weak or missing reviews by the
    rebuttal stage can desk-reject their papers;
  - every submission needs at least one author registered to review 3 papers, qualified by an
    accepted *primary-conference* paper at a listed venue as of the abstract deadline — workshop,
    position, tiny, demo and industry papers do not qualify, and neither does an acceptance that
    lands after that date;
  - no author on more than 20 papers, and at most one paper per author where nobody qualifies as a
    reciprocal reviewer. Over-quota submissions are desk-rejected **at random** until each author is
    under quota, so this is not a risk that can be absorbed by submitting extra.
- Check every author's OpenReview profile early: eligibility is read off the profile, wrong
  information is grounds for desk rejection, and a profile created without an institutional email
  can sit in moderation for up to two weeks.
- Write the **mandatory AI use statement** — ICLR 2027 requires it as a section in the paper (it does
  not count toward the page limit) as well as on the submission form. Disclosure is *required* for
  synthetic data, theoretical models, mathematical claims and proof assistance, hypotheses,
  methodology or experiment design, implementing methods, translation, dataset cleaning, qualitative
  analysis and interpreting results, and *recommended* for figures, code, drafting, literature search,
  brainstorming, titles and reference formatting. Hidden prompt injection, hallucinated citations, or
  undisclosed LLM-written scientific content can become ethics issues.

## Desk-reject and integrity risks

- Late or missing abstract/full paper.
- New author added after the author-list deadline.
- Template manipulation, over-limit main text, or missing required fields.
- Non-anonymous public links, repository ownership, analytics, demo login, or organization slug.
- Dual submission to another archival venue that violates current ICLR policy.
- Unclear LLM disclosure or review-manipulation text.
- Reciprocal-reviewing noncompliance.

## Desk-reject triage table

ICLR enforcement is strict and the consequences are public: even a withdrawn submission leaves a
visible OpenReview trace. Triage the highest-probability rejections first.

| Risk | Quick test | Fix before deadline |
| --- | --- | --- |
| De-anonymization | Grep PDF and ZIP for names, remotes, buckets | Strip metadata, neutralize links |
| Over-limit main text | Count pages against the current rule | Move material after references |
| Author-list change | Check the freeze window in the CFP | Finalize authors before the cutoff |
| Dual submission | Confirm no archival overlap | Withdraw or rescope the other venue |
| LLM disclosure | Confirm the form field is truthful | Disclose; remove hallucinated citations |

## Worked vignette

A team submits an LLM fine-tuning paper whose anonymized repo link points to a GitHub org naming the
lab, with a caption thanking a named cluster. Both leak identity. The fix: replace the link with an
anonymized supplement ZIP, remove the acknowledgment until camera-ready, re-grep the PDF for the
cluster name, and confirm all authors completed OpenReview profiles before the freeze.

## Reviewer-pushback patterns

- "Looks like a workshop paper." Reframe for the main track or route elsewhere.
- "Possible dual submission." Document why the other version is non-archival under current policy.

## Output format

```text
[ICLR readiness] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[OpenReview state] profiles / abstract / paper / supplement / reviewer nomination
[Blocking risks] <anonymity/page-limit/dual-submission/LLM/reciprocal-reviewing>
[Fix order] <highest-impact fixes before deadline>
[Current-cycle pages to reopen] <CFP, Author Guide, OpenReview group, template, LLM policy>
```