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

A viral Reddit post from user /u/DazzlingPin3965 has ignited a debate over the review process at the UAI (Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence) conference, highlighting a critical confusion between the discussion deadline (April 23 to May 2) and the rebuttal deadline. The author, who has already submitted their rebuttal, notes that none of the papers they reviewed have published rebuttals, suggesting authors are mistakenly waiting until May 2 to submit. This could prevent them from addressing follow-up questions or engaging in further discussion with reviewers. The process also lacks transparency: when a reviewer responds to a rebuttal, other reviewers cannot see the exchange, and only the rebuttal itself is visible to all. This contrasts sharply with ICML, where clear deadlines and public discussions are standard. The author reports that only one of five reviewers acknowledged their rebuttal, while the other four remain silent, calling for mandatory acknowledgment and a more transparent system.

The post has resonated with the AI research community, many of whom express frustration with UAI's opaque review process compared to other top conferences like NeurIPS or ICML. The author plans to contact the conference chair to suggest changes, including making all reviewer-author exchanges visible to all reviewers and clarifying deadlines. This incident underscores broader concerns about peer review inefficiencies in AI conferences, where lack of transparency can hinder constructive feedback and delay research progress. For professionals relying on conference proceedings for cutting-edge insights, such processes can impact the quality and timeliness of published work, potentially affecting collaboration and innovation in the field.