ICML 2025 Peer Review FAQ

This page addresses some frequently asked questions we have received regarding the peer review process for ICML 2025. Due to the high volume of emails we receive, we may not be able to respond to inquiries that are already addressed on this page.

Conflict of Interest (COI)

Q: How do I update Conflict of Interest (COI) information in OpenReview?

A: Sign into your OpenReview account, go to your profile page, and switch to edit mode by clicking "Edit Profile" near the top. You should arrive at a page titled "Edit Profile", and you can switch between the various sections by clicking the numbers near the top of the page (corresponding to Names, Personal Info, Emails, Personal Links, History, Relations, and Expertise). Of particular relevance are Emails, History, and Relations. See https://icml.cc/Conferences/2025/ConflictOfInterestDefinitions for what is considered a COI for ICML 2025. Please also make sure the "Emails" part of your profile lists your institutional email addresses (e.g., from your university, lab, or workplace).

(We sent a reminder to all authors to update this information; don't worry about the reminder if everything was already up to date!)

Submitting a paper

Q: I have a paper under submission to another conference. Is it okay under the Dual Submission Policy to also submit it to ICML 2025?

A: In order to comply with the ICML Dual Submission Policy, you must ensure that a paper of yours accepted at another conference is not under submission to ICML 2025 by the full paper submission deadline. Note that the ICML 2025 full paper submission deadline is after the notification dates for both AISTATS 2025 and ICLR 2025, so you should be able to remove any potential dual submission from OpenReview in time.

Q: Is it possible to only submit an abstract, or to only submit a poster without a full paper?

A: No. We are only taking submissions for full (research) papers and position papers.

Q: Is it possible to submit a full paper without an abstract submission?

A: No. An abstract must first be submitted by the Abstract submission deadline on OpenReview. After submitting the abstract, it will be possible to modify the submission to also upload the full paper PDF, which must be uploaded by the Full paper submission deadline. See the Call For Papers for further details (e.g., what intervening modifications are allowed).

Q: Is it possible to present a paper virtually or in hybrid-mode?

A: The conference is planned to be an in-person event, with no support for virtual or hybrid presentation. Barring exceptional circumstances, we require at least one author of each accepted paper to register for and attend the conference to present the paper.

Q: Which license should I choose?

A: Please see the OpenReview legal terms. (The arXiv license information page has related advice.)

Double-blind reviewing

Q: I want to include a link to my code/data in my submission, but it includes information (e.g., a github username) that could reveal my identity. Does this violate the double-blind review policy?

A: Yes, this would violate the double-blind review policy. If you include a link to a code or data repository that includes any identifying information about you, your submission may be desk-rejected. Please anonymize any code/data/links that you include in your submission.

Q: Is it okay to search the internet for a submission that I am assigned to review? Is it okay that I have already seen a submission that I am assigned to review (and hence already know who the authors are)?

A: Reviewers should NOT search the internet (or elsewhere) for submissions they are assigned to review, as this could violate the double-blind review policy. Naturally, this is not something we can explicitly enforce, and reviewers may have legitimately already seen de-anonymized versions of submissions they are assigned (e.g., if a literature search turns up an arxiv preprint). But the goal of the double-blind review policy is to try to reduce biases that might arise from having knowledge of a submission's authors. Also reviewers should wait to have read the paper at least once before doing a literature search on the topic of the paper.

Reciprocal reviewing requirements

Q: How do I sign up as a reviewer to fulfill the Reciprocal Reviewing Requirement?

A: There are two Reciprocal Reviewing Requirements: a "per-submission" requirement, and a "per-reviewer" requirement. The abstract submission form (on OpenReview, starting January 9) will allow submitters to designate an author to fulfill the "per-submission" requirement, or to indicate that the submission is exempt from the requirement. Any author with 4 or more submissions should fill out this Google Form to provide information we ask of all reviewers, or to indicate that they are exempt from the requirement.

After the abstract submission deadline, authors serving as reviewers to fulfill Reciprocal Reviewing Requirements may be contacted through OpenReview via <noreply@openreview.net> in that service capacity.

Q: Is the {first, second, ..., last, junior, senior, advising, sponsoring} author automatically exempt from the Reciprocal Reviewing Requirementement? How about authors who are in industry or who have left academia?

A: All authors are treated the same in terms of the Reciprocal Reviewing Requirement.

Being an area chair or reviewer

Q: I would like to volunteer to be an area chair or reviewer for ICML 2025. How can I do this?

~~A: Please fill out the following Google Form: https://forms.gle/n4SZYcxKopQoHnp27. (It will close December 27, 2024.) You will need to provide your OpenReview profile as part of this form submission.~~

This form may also be used to register yourself as a reviewer to fulfill the Reciprocal Reviewing Requirement for submissions you have co-authored. (After December 27, we will use a different process for this, which will be available by the time the submission site is open on January 9.)

A: We are no longer accepting (self-)nominations for area chairs or reviewers.

Q: What are the qualifications to be a reviewer for ICML?

A: Reviewers must have research experience equivalent to a second-year graduate student in machine learning or a related field. They must have been a primary author* on at least two peer-reviewed conference or journal papers published in a related venue (e.g., ICML, NeurIPS, ICLR, UAI, AISTATS, COLT, ALT, JMLR, TMLR, CVPR, ICCV, ACL, NAACL, EMNLP, SIMODS – note that this is not meant to be an exhaustive list). We strongly encourage each first-time reviewer to identify a ‘mentor’ (such as a research advisor or manager) who has both the necessary qualifications for and prior experience with reviewing, and who has agreed to oversee and assist the reviewer in their reviewing tasks.

The research experience ensures the reviewer is to be able to competently evaluate a submission’s methodology, interpret findings and results, and to evaluate contributions in the context of prior works. Prior authorship ensures that the reviewer understands the peer review process (at least from the side of the authors) and the standards and conventions of composing reviews and corresponding with authors.

*We leave it to your own discretion to interpret what is meant by "primary author", as this may vary between sub-areas of machine learning.

Q: What are the qualifications to be an area chair for ICML?

A: ACs (a.k.a. meta-reviewers) must have seniority at least at the level of a junior faculty member (e.g., assistant professor) in an academic institution or industry equivalent. They must have substantial prior experience with reviewing for peer-reviewed conferences or journals. They must also have expertise and/or broad knowledge in multiple major sub-areas of machine learning.

The seniority and reviewing experience ensure that the AC is able to oversee and ensure the quality of work of several reviewers and provide feedback/guidance to reviewers where necessary. The expertise and broad knowledge ensure that the AC is able to judge the contributions and importance of the submissions relative to prior works and ultimately make recommendations about acceptance/rejection.

Q: What is the reviewing load for reviewers? Can I get a reduced reviewing load?

A: We are aiming for a load of around five submissions per reviewer. Unfortunately we are not allowing for reduced load reviewing this year.

Generative AI policy

Q: Why does ICML prohibit the use of Generative AI tools (including LLMs) in reviewing?

A: Privileged information—such as the submission themselves, reviews of the submissions, discussions about the submissions, etc.—may only be used for the purpose of reviewing. Therefore, we cannot allow this information to be submitted to external services such as Generative AI tools.

The reviewing process is meant to obtain reviews from peer researchers who have read, understood, and evaluated the correctness and merits of the submissions. The credibility of ICML is damaged if reviews are automatically produced using Generative AI tools such as LLMs (whether they are accessed via an external service or on a local machine).

Main Navigation