ICML Review Process
Use this to reason about how ICML reviewers and ACs will process a submission. The point is not to
forecast acceptance by score folklore; it is to identify the decision issue and response strategy.
Process features
- ICML uses OpenReview with double-blind review.
- ICML 2026 aims for about three reviews per paper, though the number can vary.
- Reviewers consider soundness, originality, significance, clarity, and whether rebuttal resolved
their main concerns.
- Authors get a response period and then one additional reviewer-author discussion round.
- Reviewers and ACs may discuss privately; ACs synthesize conflicts and unresolved concerns.
- Reviews and author-reviewer discussion for accepted papers are made public.
- ICML 2026 uses a Policy A / Policy B framework for reviewer LLM use, with authors indicating
whether their paper requires Policy A review.
- Reciprocal reviewing links author behavior to reviewer obligations and policy compliance.
Diagnosis workflow
- Categorize each likely criticism by soundness, originality, significance, clarity, ethics,
reproducibility, or policy.
- Identify which criticism an AC can quote in a meta-review.
- Separate fixable clarity issues from missing evidence.
- Prepare response text that helps reviewers update their final justification.
- Check whether LLM-review policy, prompt injection, reciprocal reviewing, or ethics concerns could
become procedural rejection risks.
Score-dimension to AC-leverage map
ICML ACs synthesize conflicts into a meta-review, so the useful question is which dimension an AC can
defend a decision on.
| Dimension |
What a reviewer cites |
What an AC can act on |
| Soundness |
Broken proof, untuned baseline, leakage |
Strong reject anchor; hard to rebut without new evidence |
| Originality |
Overlap with prior or concurrent work |
Reject anchor unless delta is reframed |
| Significance |
Narrow gain, no mechanism |
Borderline; rebuttal can reframe scope |
| Clarity |
Buried contribution, dense columns |
Often fixable; weakest reject basis alone |
Worked vignette: reading a split panel
The optimizer paper draws one champion citing the convergence theorem, one skeptic citing an
untuned Adam baseline, and one borderline reviewer citing clarity. The AC-quotable issue is the
baseline soundness concern, not clarity, so the response strategy concentrates the single discussion
round on the tuned-baseline table. Because accepted reviews and discussion become public, the authors
keep the tone measured. If the paper also flagged Policy A LLM-review handling, confirm that choice is
consistent so it does not surface as a procedural risk. Verify the per-paper review count and policy
labels against the current cycle rather than assuming the prior year's setup.
Output format
[Likely review pattern] supportive / split / skeptical
[AC decision issue] <one issue>
[Procedural risks] <LLM policy / reciprocal reviewer / ethics / anonymity / none>
[Response posture] clarify / add small result / concede / reroute
[Public-record concern] <what will be visible if accepted>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → ICML-Skills/skills/icml-review-process/SKILL.md
1---2name: icml-review-process3description: Use when explaining or diagnosing the ICML review process, including OpenReview, reciprocal reviewing, reviewer/AC behavior, review dimensions, author response, one-round discussion, LLM-review policy, ethics flags, and public review records.4---567# ICML Review Process89Use this to reason about how ICML reviewers and ACs will process a submission. The point is not to10forecast acceptance by score folklore; it is to identify the decision issue and response strategy.1112## Process features1314- ICML uses OpenReview with double-blind review.15- ICML 2026 aims for about three reviews per paper, though the number can vary.16- Reviewers consider soundness, originality, significance, clarity, and whether rebuttal resolved17 their main concerns.18- Authors get a response period and then one additional reviewer-author discussion round.19- Reviewers and ACs may discuss privately; ACs synthesize conflicts and unresolved concerns.20- Reviews and author-reviewer discussion for accepted papers are made public.21- ICML 2026 uses a Policy A / Policy B framework for reviewer LLM use, with authors indicating22 whether their paper requires Policy A review.23- Reciprocal reviewing links author behavior to reviewer obligations and policy compliance.2425## Diagnosis workflow26271. Categorize each likely criticism by soundness, originality, significance, clarity, ethics,28 reproducibility, or policy.292. Identify which criticism an AC can quote in a meta-review.303. Separate fixable clarity issues from missing evidence.314. Prepare response text that helps reviewers update their final justification.325. Check whether LLM-review policy, prompt injection, reciprocal reviewing, or ethics concerns could33 become procedural rejection risks.3435## Score-dimension to AC-leverage map3637ICML ACs synthesize conflicts into a meta-review, so the useful question is which dimension an AC can38defend a decision on.3940| Dimension | What a reviewer cites | What an AC can act on |41| --- | --- | --- |42| Soundness | Broken proof, untuned baseline, leakage | Strong reject anchor; hard to rebut without new evidence |43| Originality | Overlap with prior or concurrent work | Reject anchor unless delta is reframed |44| Significance | Narrow gain, no mechanism | Borderline; rebuttal can reframe scope |45| Clarity | Buried contribution, dense columns | Often fixable; weakest reject basis alone |4647## Worked vignette: reading a split panel4849The optimizer paper draws one champion citing the convergence theorem, one skeptic citing an50untuned Adam baseline, and one borderline reviewer citing clarity. The AC-quotable issue is the51baseline soundness concern, not clarity, so the response strategy concentrates the single discussion52round on the tuned-baseline table. Because accepted reviews and discussion become public, the authors53keep the tone measured. If the paper also flagged Policy A LLM-review handling, confirm that choice is54consistent so it does not surface as a procedural risk. Verify the per-paper review count and policy55labels against the current cycle rather than assuming the prior year's setup.5657## Output format5859```text60[Likely review pattern] supportive / split / skeptical61[AC decision issue] <one issue>62[Procedural risks] <LLM policy / reciprocal reviewer / ethics / anonymity / none>63[Response posture] clarify / add small result / concede / reroute64[Public-record concern] <what will be visible if accepted>65```6667---6869**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `ICML-Skills/skills/icml-review-process/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain