| 1 | Jun 10, 2010 7:07 PM | Wasn't in previous ICMLs |
| 2 | Jun 10, 2010 7:21 PM | Not having a response to the final reviews was a terrible choice, as our final reviewer did not know what they were talking about. |
| 3 | Jun 10, 2010 8:25 PM | But much better than ICML 2009, which was a disaster in my view. |
| 4 | Jun 10, 2010 9:06 PM | Quality of phase 1 reviews was embarrassingly low. |
| 5 | Jun 10, 2010 9:26 PM | The trend of ICML is to playing with mathematical notation and following some "hot topics". |
| 6 | Jun 10, 2010 10:51 PM | I've often found ICML2010 reviewers incoherent----making claims that just don't compute. That was true this year also. |
| 7 | Jun 11, 2010 12:05 AM | I do not think some of the area chairs/reviewer are qualified |
| 8 | Jun 11, 2010 2:30 AM | The main issue seems to be the lack of reviewers with expertise. |
| 9 | Jun 11, 2010 3:03 AM | I thought there was a lot of poor matching -- the process is too complicated, and it depends on area chairs guessing good keywords, and having a pool of reviewers that is "right" for the set of papers they actually get -- which might or might not happen (and often didn't, especially for ACs with broad interests). I also thought that the Phase 2 reviews were no better than the Phase 1 reviews, and the shortened timeline caused by the two-phase reviewing just made it less likely that people would have the time and attention to really do a good job. |
| 10 | Jun 11, 2010 6:21 AM | Can't comment. First submission. |
| 11 | Jun 11, 2010 8:09 AM | It was not possible to rebut comments from Phase II reviewers. In my case, there were three additional reviews in Phase II, some of which made significant factual errors that could not be addressed. |
| 12 | Jun 11, 2010 8:20 AM | no previous submission... |
| 13 | Jun 11, 2010 1:03 PM | Can't tell, but quality varied a lot! |
| 14 | Jun 11, 2010 1:19 PM | First submission to ICML, I can't answer this question. |
| 15 | Jun 11, 2010 1:20 PM | I did not submit to previous ICML |
| 16 | Jun 11, 2010 1:47 PM | what improved the reviews was withdrawing a poor review in phase 1 and replacing it by a very competent third review in phase 2 |
| 17 | Jun 11, 2010 1:55 PM | This is my first ICML paper. |
| 18 | Jun 11, 2010 1:57 PM | no experience with previous ICMLs; first time submitter |
| 19 | Jun 11, 2010 2:03 PM | I feel our rejected paper was rejected because of a single poor reviewer who obviously hadn't put in the time to understanding the method. The area chair should have caught this. |
| 20 | Jun 11, 2010 2:23 PM | I can not compare with previous one, as I did not submit |
| 21 | Jun 11, 2010 2:25 PM | The quality of ICML reviewers should be improved. Trivially wrong reviews appear in my paper. |
| 22 | Jun 11, 2010 2:31 PM | Don't know. |
| 23 | Jun 11, 2010 2:58 PM | didn't submit to icml2009 |
| 24 | Jun 11, 2010 3:38 PM | Above answer closest to: "I don't know about ahy previous year's ICML". |
| 25 | Jun 11, 2010 4:19 PM | I had a problem with the process on our particular papr: only 2 reviews were given during phase I. Both were positive, leading us to believe that the paper would get in. We responded to the comments, which again were pretty mild. In phase II, though, a third review was added which was more negative, but to which wew were not given the chance to respond. We felt that that was an unfair process. I spoke to another author of a rejected paper who said that his experience was similar and which he also judged to be unfair. |
| 26 | Jun 11, 2010 5:05 PM | About the reviewing model: there is evidence that double-blind does remove bias, but my personal preference would be to know the name of reviewers without associating each reviewer to each review. |
| 27 | Jun 13, 2010 1:15 AM | Can't say. This is my first ICML. |
| 28 | Jun 13, 2010 5:26 AM | I didnt submit in the past |
| 29 | Jun 13, 2010 9:27 AM | No experience |
| 30 | Jun 13, 2010 12:01 PM | cannot say, not much experience |
| 31 | Jun 13, 2010 5:27 PM | One of our reviewers changed his or her review after our rebuttal. Why? Perhaps this was at the direction of the area chair. If the opinion of a paper changes during phase 2, fine, but the original phase-1 reviews shouldn't get edited to reflect the new thinking about the paper. |
| 32 | Jun 14, 2010 7:30 PM | no idead |
| 33 | Jun 15, 2010 9:25 AM | Do not know |
| 34 | Jun 16, 2010 8:25 AM | Does not apply for me. |
| 35 | Jun 19, 2010 5:18 AM | In this year, the quality of many reviews are rather poor. Many reviewers are not loyal to the research itself, while come to a conclusion only based on personal preferences. |
| 36 | Jun 25, 2010 6:44 AM | There was rather high variability in the quality and depth of the reviews, and in my experience, more than the usual share of low quality, superficial reviews. |
| 37 | Jun 25, 2010 8:30 AM | this is the first time I send a paper to ICML |