Iclr Review Process

---
name: iclr-review-process
description: 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.
---

# 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.

## Output format

```text
[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>
```