Am I crazy to think that the UAI authors are confusing the discussion deadline with the rebuttal deadline ? [D]

2026-04-29 · Source: Machine Learning · Field: Technology & Digital — Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning, Research Methodology & Innovation · Depth: Intermediate, medium

Summary

The UAI 2024 conference review process is causing significant confusion and frustration among authors and reviewers, primarily due to a perceived misunderstanding of the discussion and rebuttal deadlines. Many participants are equating the discussion period (April 23 to May 2nd) with a rebuttal deadline, leading to delayed rebuttal submissions and minimal reviewer engagement. Unlike conferences such as ICML, UAI's OpenReview system lacks transparency, with reviewer responses to rebuttals and subsequent author replies not visible to all reviewers. This opacity, combined with strict character limits for rebuttals and the inability to upload revised manuscripts or PDFs, complicates addressing major issues like proof corrections. The timeline is further exacerbated by significant overlaps with other major conference deadlines, including ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML workshops, and AISTATS, creating an unsustainable workload for many in the research community.

Key takeaway

For AI Scientists and Research Scientists navigating conference submissions, UAI's current review process highlights the critical need for clear communication and transparent interaction. If you are an author, submit your rebuttal early to maximize discussion opportunities, even if engagement is low. As a reviewer, be aware that other reviewers may not see your responses, impacting collective assessment. Consider these structural differences when allocating your time and effort across multiple conference deadlines, and advocate for process improvements that enhance transparency and clarity.

Key insights

UAI's review process suffers from deadline confusion and transparency issues, hindering effective author-reviewer discussion.

Principles

• Review process transparency is crucial for fairness.
• Clear, distinct deadlines prevent author/reviewer confusion.

In practice

• Avoid submitting to consecutive conferences.
• Prioritize clarity in rebuttal submissions.

Topics

• UAI Review Process
• Rebuttal Deadlines
• Conference Transparency
• Reviewer Engagement
• NeurIPS Deadline Overlap

Best for: AI Scientist, Research Scientist

Related on AIssential

• [ECCV 2026] No modified date next to reviews [D] — Academic conference review processes face challenges with reviewer accountability and engagement post-rebuttal, impacting author fairness.
• A key science publishing platform is cracking down on AI slop — arXiv's ban on AI-error papers highlights the challenge of maintaining research quality amidst rising AI-generated content.
• Some Lessons on Reviews and Rebuttals — Effective academic reviewing and rebuttal writing hinge on structured processes and a constructive mindset.
• A Simple Solution to Improve Broken Peer Review System at AI Conferences [R] — Splitting conference submissions and reviewers into independent halves can reduce reciprocal reviewing bias.
• Responses to the AI grant flood must prioritize fairness as part of excellence — AI-driven application surges demand grant system reform to ensure fairness and maintain funder credibility.
• Please follow the rules for ARR/ACL papers — Adherence to publication guidelines is crucial for research quality and reviewer efficiency.

Open in AIssential →

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