Am I crazy to think that the UAI authors are confusing the discussion deadline with the rebuttal deadline ? [D]

Reddit r/MachineLearning / 4/29/2026

💬 OpinionIdeas & Deep AnalysisIndustry & Market Moves

共有:

Key Points

The author argues that UAI’s “discussion period” deadline is being misinterpreted as the “rebuttal deadline,” causing rebuttals not to be posted by the expected time.
They note that if authors submit rebuttals only up to May 2, there may be no opportunity for further Q&A with reviewers or follow-up questions.
The post claims that OpenReview’s UAI setup lacks transparency compared with ICML: reviewer responses to a rebuttal may be hidden from other reviewers, so not everyone can see the exchange.
The author reports submitting a rebuttal but receiving a response from only one reviewer, with others staying silent, and they question why the process differs from conferences where transparency and clear deadlines are standard.
They propose contacting the conference chair to push for process changes that improve alignment with other venues and ensure public, visible discussions.

Hello everyone.

UAI review results were released last Thursday, and the discussion period was clearly stated as April 23 to May 2nd. However, none of the papers I reviewed have yet published their rebuttals. I believe this confusion arises because people are mistakenly equating the discussion deadline with the rebuttal deadline. For example, ICML has a rebuttal deadline followed by a discussion period, but this isn’t the case here.

If authors wait until May 2nd to submit their rebuttals, they won’t have the opportunity to address any additional questions or engage in further discussion with the reviewers nor will the reviewers be able to raise any follow up question.

As an author, I’ve already submitted my rebuttal, but only one reviewer has responded. Additionally, I’ve noticed that when a reviewer responds to your rebuttal, the other reviewers do not see it. The openreview process for UAI is significantly different from ICML and lacks transparency. All comments from reviewers and authors should be visible to everyone.

The discussion between reviewers and authors should be public, but only the rebuttal is visible to everyone the reviewer’s response is not visible to other reviewers. When you respond to a reviewer, the other reviewers also do not see that exchange.

I’m genuinely confused about why this process was implemented and why it doesn’t resemble ICML, where transparency and clear deadlines are the norm. It’s unusual that, two days before the discussion period ends, none of the papers I reviewed have any rebuttals and only one of the five reviewers of my paper acknowledged my rebuttal, while the other four remain silent.

I would like to reach out to the conference chair to suggest changes that would make the process more similar to other conferences and ensure greater transparency.

If anyone has any insights into why authors haven’t published their rebuttals or why reviewers haven’t been active during this discussion period, please let me know. I was expecting a genuine discussion rather than just posting my rebuttal without any response. Rebuttal acknowledgment should be mandatory.

submitted by /u/DazzlingPin3965
[link] [comments]