[D] Dealing with an unprofessional reviewer using fake references and personal attacks in ICML26

Reddit r/MachineLearning / 4/9/2026

💬 OpinionSignals & Early Trends

共有:

Key Points

A Reddit post describes an unprofessional ICML 2026 peer reviewer who allegedly ignored the authors’ rebuttal and assigned a score of 1 (Confidence 5) while using fake references and ad hominem personal attacks.
The authors claim the reviewer’s technical arguments include mathematically nonsensical proofs, circular reasoning, and baseless accusations related to MIT license and anonymity policy compliance.
The reviewer is also accused of aggressive/erroneous formatting and of repeatedly editing a “PS” section to elicit Program Chair attention and potentially bias discussion.
The writer asks whether anyone has successfully had such a review discarded or flagged for AC (area chair) intervention, especially when fraudulent citations and personal attacks are involved.
The post notes that two other reviewers gave scores of 5, while one is partially resolved but “shaking,” and the authors plan to respond professionally by addressing weaknesses across rebuttals.

We are currently facing an ICML 2026 reviewer who lowered the score to a 1 (Confidence 5) while ignoring our rebuttal and relying on fake references and personal insults like "close-minded" and "hostile." Despite my other reviewers giving 5s, this individual is using mathematically nonsensical proofs and making baseless accusations about MIT license/anonymity violations, all while using aggressive formatting and strange syntax errors (e.g., bolding ending with periods like **.). The reviewer is also constantly editing their "PS" section to bait Program Chair attention and bias the discussion phase. I’ve never seen such unprofessionalism in peer review; has anyone successfully had a review discarded or flagged for AC intervention when a reviewer uses demonstrably fraudulent citations and resorts to ad hominem attacks?

Note: we got other two as 5 but one is shaking with partially resolved. We are pretty sure I respond each weakness with professional and respectful words in the first rebuttal but in the second, we pointed out the reviewer no relevant references and circular reasoning. He/she seems outrageous… I mean if he/she doesn’t agree we can battle with professionalism but the reviewer is basically living in his / her own mind.

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