Some Ethical Issues in the Review Process of Machine Learning Conferences
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent successes in the Machine Learning community have led to a steep increase in the number of papers submitted to conferences. This increase made more prominent some of the issues that affect the current review process used by these conferences. The review process has several issues that may undermine the nature of scientific research, which is of being fully objective, apolitical, unbiased and free of misconduct (such as plagiarism, cheating, improper influence, and other improprieties). In this work, we study the problem of reviewers' recruitment, infringements of the double-blind process, fraudulent behaviors, biases in numerical ratings, and the appendix phenomenon (i.e., the fact that it is becoming more common to publish results in the appendix section of a paper). For each of these problems, we provide a short description and possible solutions. The goal of this work is to raise awareness in the Machine Learning community regarding these issues.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2021.
Builds on
7 of 21 references.
References · 7
- 2020Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignmentscited by 38
- 2017Design and Analysis of the NIPS 2016 Review Processcited by 33
- 2019Does My Rebuttal Matter? Insights from a Major NLP Conferencecited by 31
- 2020An Open Review of OpenReview: A Critical Analysis of the Machine Learning Conference Review Processcited by 24
- 2020A Novice-Reviewer Experiment to Address Scarcity of Qualified Reviewers in Large Conferencescited by 16
- 2018Avoiding a Tragedy of the Commons in the Peer Review Processcited by 10
- 2020De-anonymization of authors through arXiv submissions during double-blind reviewcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
4 papers.
- 2025Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewardscited by 34
- 2023Automatic Analysis of Substantiation in Scientific Peer Reviewscited by 19
- 2024The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Reviewcited by 8
- 2026Impact of large language models on peer review opinions from a fine-grained perspective: Evidence from top conference proceedings in AIcited by 1
- 2026Impact of large language models on peer review opinions from a fine-grained perspective: Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI21 Apr 2026
- 2025Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards8 May 2025
- 2024The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review24 Aug 2024
- 2023Automatic Analysis of Substantiation in Scientific Peer Reviews20 Nov 2023