[ECCV 2026] No modified date next to reviews [D]

2026-05-19 · Source: Machine Learning · Field: Science & Research — Research Methodology & Innovation, Mathematics & Computational Sciences · Depth: Advanced, short

Summary

Authors submitting to academic conferences like ECCV 2026 and CVPR are expressing significant frustration regarding the review process on Openreview, specifically the lack of updated "modified dates" next to reviewer comments after the rebuttal period. Many authors, including one with a paper scoring 433, report that reviewers are not providing final justifications or updating their scores, even when rebuttals directly address initial concerns. This issue is perceived as a lack of accountability, particularly from reviewers with high confidence and negative initial scores who may be unwilling to admit errors. The community discusses the potential for "desk rejection" for reviewers failing to justify decisions and calls for policies to ban irresponsible reviewers, similar to arXiv. Concerns also exist about Area Chairs (ACs) mechanically deferring to unchanged scores rather than engaging with rebuttals, though some hope ACs will intervene.

Key takeaway

For research scientists submitting to conferences like ECCV or CVPR, closely monitor Openreview's "modified dates" on reviewer comments after your rebuttal. If reviewers fail to update justifications by the deadline, your paper's fate depends on the Area Chair's engagement. ACs must thoroughly read your rebuttal, not just defer to initial, unchanged scores. Be prepared for potential rejection if negative reviews remain unaddressed by reviewers.

Key insights

Academic conference review processes face challenges with reviewer accountability and engagement post-rebuttal, impacting author fairness.

Principles

• Reviewer modified dates indicate engagement.
• Unjustified negative reviews can lead to rejection.
• Reviewer accountability is crucial for fairness.

In practice

• Track Openreview modified dates for reviewer engagement.
• Be aware of ACs' potential to override reviewer inaction.
• Advocate for stronger reviewer accountability policies.

Topics

• Academic Peer Review
• Conference Submissions
• Openreview Platform
• Reviewer Accountability
• Area Chair Role
• ECCV 2026

Best for: AI Scientist, Research Scientist

Related on AIssential

• [D] How often do reviewers decrease their initial scores after rebuttal period ends in CVPR? — Reviewer scores can decrease post-rebuttal, especially for borderline ratings or due to ineffective rebuttals.
• [D] Saw this papaer from ICLR with scores 2,2,2,4 and got accepted, HOW — Area Chair overrides in peer review can lead to controversial paper acceptance/rejection decisions, especially with low reviewer scores.
• ICLR’s Commitment to OpenReview — ICLR is doubling its financial support for OpenReview to promote open science and reproducible research.
• Some Lessons on Reviews and Rebuttals — Effective academic reviewing and rebuttal writing hinge on structured processes and a constructive mindset.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Machine Learning.