ICML 2022 Author Information
New to this year, submitted papers are composed of a main body, which can be up to eight pages long, followed by unlimited pages for references and an appendix, all in a single file. Note that upon the acceptance of the paper, ICML will publish the submission as a whole: That is, the camera ready version will include the appendices (and references). For details concerning the format of the papers, please see the LaTeX style files, an example paper, and the Call For Papers. There is no support for any other software than LaTeX. All submissions must be via CMT, anonymized and must closely follow the formatting guidelines in the templates; otherwise they will automatically be rejected. In particular, any submission whose main body goes over the 8 page limit will be automatically rejected. (For the final version, an extra page will be allowed. See the example paper for further information.)
As in previous years, authors have the option of uploading extra files to provide further details of their work. The files included in the supplementary may contain code that supports experimental findings, or extra data, or other (anonymized) papers of the authors whose results are needed by the submitted paper. It is entirely up to the reviewers to decide whether they wish to consult any of the appendices in the submitted paper or this additional material. Therefore, if there is material critical to the evaluation of the paper, it needs to be included in the main body of the paper.
Authors are encouraged to submit code to foster reproducibility. Reproducibility of results and easy availability of code will be taken into account in the decision-making process.
Previously published papers with substantial overlap written by the authors must be cited in such a way so as to preserve author anonymity. Differences relative to these earlier papers must be explained in the text of the submission. For example: “This work builds on [reference], which showed that…”.
Accessibility and Inclusiveness
We kindly ask all authors to follow our guidelines for writing accessible papers. In particular, we expect that authors (1) review guidelines for accessibility to color-blind and visually impaired; (2) ensure their bibliography is up-to-date, including up-to-date names and venues; (3) use inclusive and respectful language throughout when talking about people.
Reviewing for ICML 2022 is double-blind; i.e., reviewers will not know the authors’ identity (and vice versa). Detailed instructions for how to ensure anonymity are also contained in the above example paper. In brief, author’s should refer to their prior work in the third person wherever possible. They should refrain from including acknowledgements, grant numbers, or public github repository links in their submissions. If an anonymous reference is needed in the paper (e.g., for referring to the authors’ own work that is under review elsewhere), include the referred work as supplementary material as noted above. Note that anonymizing the submissions is mandatory, and papers that explicitly or implicitly reveal the authors’ identities will be rejected. A reviewer may be able to deduce the authors’ identities by using external resources, such as technical reports published on the web. The availability of information on the web that may allow reviewers to infer the authors’ identities does not constitute a breach of the double-blind submission policy. Reviewers are explicitly asked not to seek this information.
ICML 2022 supports the submission of two kinds of supplementary material -- supplementary manuscripts and code/data. In particular, if an anonymous reference is made in the paper, authors should upload the referenced papers, so that the reviewers can check the results in the referred paper. The supplementary material must also be anonymized.
For code submissions, we expect authors to anonymize the submitted code. This means that author names and licenses should be removed. Submission of code through anonymous github repositories is allowed; however, they have to be on a branch that will not be modified after the submission deadline. Please enter the github link in a standalone text file in a submitted zip file.
Data submissions (provided that the authors have the right to do so) in anonymous repositories are welcome.
The supplementary code can be submitted as either a zip file or a pdf.
Supplementary material will not be published or archived, and there are no format restrictions. Authors are therefore responsible for the archival and access of the supplementary if they want to refer to it in the final version of their paper.
ICML uses the Toronto Paper Matching System (TPMS) in the process of assigning submissions to reviewers and area chairs. During the submission process, authors will be asked to agree to the use of TPMS.
Dual Submission Policy
It is not appropriate to submit papers that are substantially similar (or identical) in content to versions that have been previously published, or accepted for publication, or that are under review at other peer reviewed conferences or journals at any time while they are also under consideration for ICML. Such submissions violate our dual submission policy and will be rejected.
Submission is permitted for papers presented or to be presented at conferences or workshops without proceedings (e.g., ICML or NeurIPS workshops), or with only abstracts (limited to at most 4 pages) published.
Submission is permitted for papers that have previously been made available as a technical report (or similar, e.g., in arXiv). In this case, we suggest the authors not cite the report, so as to preserve anonymity.
Two-phase reviewing process
This year, ICML is following a two-phase reviewing process. In phase 1, all papers will be allocated two reviewers. If the two reviews submitted for a paper are both negative and the area chair assigned to the paper concurs with the reviews, the paper is rejected: All phase 1 rejected papers will get a notification by the end of phase 1, including the two reviews and the justification of the decision by the area chair. The papers not rejected in phase 1 will progress to phase 2, where they are assigned one or two additional reviewers. Before they submit their own reviews, the new reviewers assigned to a paper will not get access to the reviews submitted in phase 1 for that paper. After all reviews are received, all reviews will be made available to the authors, who are given a chance in a rebuttal process to provide feedback to the reviewers, which will be used in the final decision making process. Decisions made in both phases are final.
From April 6 to April 11, authors can see the reviews and respond to their content.
The response will be used by the Program Committee in their judgment of the paper. This year, the response must be submitted as a 1 page .pdf prepared using the ICML 2022 author response latex style file.
Authors can submit one response per submission. Once author feedback is enabled, authors will see a link to “Author Feedback” from the author console. Any of the authors of a paper can enter/edit the response, and the response can be returned to and edited up to the deadline for author feedback.
As reviewing is double-blind, authors should not include any identifying information in their response. No URLs can be included in the response.
We recommend using judgement when crafting a response. There is no need to respond to every minor question or suggestion for improvement. Rather, the response is a good opportunity for addressing issues like a reviewer’s uncertainty about a point, a reviewer making an incorrect assumption, or a reviewer misunderstanding some part of the paper. A professional and polite language is expected to be the most effective.
Miscellaneous information related to the author feedback and reviews:
* We aim to provide three reviews for every paper. The reviewer numbers are arbitrary, do not read much into them. The reviews do not include scores. Further information on what the reviews should include, consult the reviewer tutorial, the annotated review form and a presentation on "how to be a good reviewer" that was sent to all the reviewers.
* The structure of the author response is up to the authors. It is typical to organize the response by reviewers. Here, use the reviewer numbers to refer to the particular reviews.
* The author feedback will be visible to the reviewers, meta-reviewers, senior meta-reviewers (just those assigned to the paper) and the program chairs.
* There is no option to upload a revised version of the paper during the author feedback period. Upon the acceptance of the paper, it is up to the authors to include any changes to improve the paper (without essentially changing its content, compared to what the reviewers have seen) in the final, camera ready version of the paper.
Code of Conduct
Authors will be asked to confirm that their submissions accord with the ICML code of conduct.