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.

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>