[D] TMLR reviews seem more reliable than ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR

Reddit r/MachineLearning / 4/3/2026

💬 OpinionSignals & Early TrendsIdeas & Deep AnalysisTools & Practical Usage

Key Points

  • A first-time ICML submitter compares review quality across TMLR, ICML, ICLR, and other major conferences based on their observed experiences and reviewer behaviors.
  • The author reports that TMLR reviews were more thoughtful and constructive, with reviewers showing topic awareness, asking reasonable questions, and providing apt concerns.
  • For ICML (and to some extent ICLR), the author describes reviews as feeling rushed, low-confidence, or sometimes overly hostile, with less constructive feedback.
  • The comparison is framed around timelines as well, noting that these venues often take around (or under) four months to reach a final decision.
  • The post concludes with skepticism about whether big conferences (ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR) are “worth it” if review quality is consistently weaker than TMLR.

This year I submitted a paper to ICML for the first time. I have also experienced the review process at TMLR and ICLR. From my observation, given these venues take up close to (or less than) 4 months until the final decision, I think the quality of reviews at TMLR was so much on point when compared with that at ICML right now. Many ICML reviews I am seeing (be it my own paper or the papers received for reviewing), feel rushed, low confidence or sometimes overly hostile without providing constructive feedback. All this makes me realise the quality that TMLR reviews offered. The reviewers there are more aware of the topic, ask reasonable questions and show concerns where it's apt. ​It’s making me wonder if the big conferences (ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR) are even worth it?

submitted by /u/MT1699
[link] [comments]