ICML 2026 Conflict of Interest Definitions
ICML 2026 Conflict of Interest Definitions This document defines what constitutes a conflict of interest for the ICML 2026 review process. (It is based on the document for NeurIPS 2024.) Please read this document carefully. Anyone who plans to submit a paper as an author or a co-author will need to create or update their OpenReview profile . You will be asked to declare two types of conflicts — domain conflicts and personal conflicts. Both types are declared by filling out appropriate sections of your OpenReview profile , as described below. Domain conflicts (entered in Career & Education History) Please ensure that this section accurately represents your domain conflicts for (at least) the last three years. For current or recent collaborations, including internships, you should generally use personal conflicts (recorded in the Advisors & Other Relations section). Please use domain conflicts judiciously, reserving them for cases when you have a genuine conflict of interest with the institution. Your Career & Education History is public on your OpenReview profile. When you enter a domain conflict, none of your submissions will be visible to reviewers, area chairs, or senior area chairs who have also entered this domain conflict. Only the last three years of your and their Career & Education History will be used. Conflicts with individual authors and program committee members (entered in Advisors & Other Relations) The following constitutes a personal conflict: Family or close personal relationship Ph.D. advisee/advisor relationship Current, frequent, or recent collaboration (where recent means within the past three years). However, you do not need to enter co-authors of your publications that appear in your OpenReview profile. In some cases, you may have a personal conflict that is not covered by the definition above, but would nonetheless significantly compromise the fairness of the review process. You may choose to limit visibility of such a conflict in your OpenReview profile by changing its visibility from "everyone" (the default) to "ICML.cc/2026/{Conference,Position_Paper_Track}/Program_Chairs". If program chairs have any reason to doubt the validity of such a conflict, they may ask the integrity chair to confidentially inquire into its nature. Please note that OpenReview profiles are persistent across conferences, but other conferences may have a different conflict resolution policy. Any attempt to impact reviewer assignment via false declaration of conflicts may result in rejection of all submitted papers without review. If you have any questions about special circumstances not discussed above, please contact program chairs at program-chairs@icml.cc . Successful Page Load ICML uses cookies for essential functions only. We do not sell your personal information. Our Privacy Policy » Accept
Executive Summary
This article defines the conflict of interest policies for the ICML 2026 review process, outlining domain and personal conflicts that must be declared by authors through their OpenReview profiles. The policies aim to ensure fairness and transparency in the review process, but also present limitations and potential issues that may arise. Understanding these conflicts and their implications is crucial for authors and reviewers alike.
Key Points
- ▸ Authors must declare domain and personal conflicts through their OpenReview profiles.
- ▸ Domain conflicts are reserved for genuine conflicts of interest with institutions, while personal conflicts include family relationships, Ph.D. advisee/advisor relationships, and recent collaborations.
- ▸ Conflicts may limit visibility of submissions to reviewers and area chairs with similar conflicts, and may also affect reviewer assignment.
Merits
Transparency and Fairness
The conflict of interest policies promote transparency and fairness in the review process by requiring authors to declare potential conflicts, which can then be taken into account when assigning reviewers and evaluating submissions.
Protection of Intellectual Property
The policies aim to prevent authors from using conflicts to influence reviewer assignment or gain an unfair advantage in the review process.
Demerits
Overly Broad Definitions
The definitions of domain and personal conflicts may be too broad, potentially leading to unnecessary declarations or limitations on visibility of submissions.
Potential for Abuse
The policies may be vulnerable to abuse by authors who attempt to use conflicts to manipulate the review process or gain an unfair advantage.
Expert Commentary
The conflict of interest policies outlined in this article are a welcome step towards promoting transparency and fairness in the ICML 2026 review process. However, as with any policy, there are potential limitations and issues that must be carefully considered. For example, the broad definitions of domain and personal conflicts may lead to unnecessary declarations or limitations on visibility of submissions. Furthermore, the policies may be vulnerable to abuse by authors who attempt to use conflicts to manipulate the review process or gain an unfair advantage. To mitigate these risks, conference organizers and journal editors should develop and implement robust conflict of interest policies that take into account the complexities and nuances of research and academia. Ultimately, the goal of these policies should be to promote fairness, transparency, and integrity in the review process, while also protecting intellectual property and preventing abuse.
Recommendations
- ✓ Conference organizers and journal editors should develop and implement robust conflict of interest policies that take into account the complexities and nuances of research and academia.
- ✓ Authors and reviewers must carefully consider and declare potential conflicts of interest to ensure fairness and transparency in the review process.
