What is the AC guidance for ICML? (Or: ICML qq thread) [D]

A viral discussion on the ICML 2024 peer review process has exposed significant inconsistencies in how Area Chairs (ACs) are managing the final stages of paper evaluation. According to a detailed post from an author/reviewer, there appears to be increased pressure on ACs to secure final justifications from reviewers and push them toward a consensus decision. The poster notes that in the five papers they reviewed, ACs were highly active, resulting in nearly every final justification being completed. This suggests a concerted, top-down effort to formalize decisions before the conference deadline.

However, this proactive stance is not universal, leading to frustration and perceived unfairness. The original poster contrasts their experience as a reviewer with their experience as an author. Their own submitted paper, which received scores of 3, 3, 4, 4 indicating some disagreement and potential for discussion, has seen no movement. Two reviewers have not posted final justifications, and their AC has not intervened to prompt them. This disparity has ignited a broader conversation within the AI research community about the quality and equity of the review process at top-tier conferences like ICML, where publication decisions can significantly impact careers.