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.
Scanned 6/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill icml-review-process --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Icml Review Process?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-icml-review-process)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: icml-review-process
description: 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.
---
# 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
1. Categorize each likely criticism by soundness, originality, significance, clarity, ethics,
reproducibility, or policy.
2. Identify which criticism an AC can quote in a meta-review.
3. Separate fixable clarity issues from missing evidence.
4. Prepare response text that helps reviewers update their final justification.
5. Check whether LLM-review policy, prompt injection, reciprocal reviewing, or ethics concerns could
become procedural rejection risks.
## Output format
```text
[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>
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!