As an aside, @iclr-conf.bsky.social, how are top reviewers identified? I’d love to nominate two of mine!

Comments from the Program Chair on NeurIPS work:

- We ran only 1 seed (incorrect— even ChatGPT got this right!)
- No code submitted. (They searched for "GitHub" instead of checking the supplemental materials)

While we may have been below the bar for NeurIPS, the reasons cited were outright false.

This poor quality of assessment not only demotivates researchers, it also brings into question any claims of fairness and accountability made by NeurIPS. (4/4)

Lastly did not check the supplementary materials for code and instead checked our paper for github link (in a double blind review process) and said we made a spurious claim about including our code. (3/4)

For example, despite giving many references to neuroscience papers, the PC clams that none of it is supported by neuroscience or behavioral data. We clearly present results with error bars and averaged over 5 seeds (explicitly mentioned in the paper), yet the PC claimed we presented only 1 seed(2/4)

What is @neuripsconf.bsky.social doing to hold program chairs accountable? In our submission (see link below), the quality of program chair comments is worse than reviewers (and even LLMs). There is no process to appeal this. (1/4)

openreview.net/forum?id=IdE...