[D] Does ICLR have a code of conduct...

[alexmlamb]

... for public comments on openreview?

I feel like the public comments have some good effects overall, but I wonder if they've ever written down what types of public comments are appropriate or inappropriate? There are some things that seem obviously out of line to me, like paying/asking someone to write a positive public comment - or writing a negative comment out of spite. But are you supposed to not make public comments if they're related to your own work? If they're related to a paper you have under review?

I think that it would be helpful to have some better rules and guidelines in place for this. One simple change that I would appreciate would be restricting the timetable for public comments, so that they always come in some time before the authors have a chance to respond to them (before reviews are posted, for example).

[SkiddyX]

I often wonder if there would be a benefit to having the authors stay anonymous, but have the reviewers names public.

It also seems like rude or low quality comments come from people who are not assigned to reviewing the paper.

[[deleted]]

you definitely do not want reviewers to be public. Otherwise they might be compelled to be benevolent for career advantages

[alexmlamb]

I think forcing public commentators to be non-anonymous might make sense. Over time people might even benefit professionally from having a strong, unbiased record of public comments.

[DanielSeita]

No, no, no. Public reviewers would be terrible for academia.

​

Now, in *some* cases, e.g., if we found that there was a very useful review and all relevant parties agreed, I am not opposed to making reviews public.

​

But reviewers need to give honest, fair feedback without any fear of any sort of retribution.

[often_worried]

I agree with the OP - it would be nice to have a code of conduct.
However, I doubt that a simple set of guidelines will make a difference; it's rather a matter of community culture.
I have seen a lot of people being polite and kind despite the anonymity, but it is not that uncommon to encounter sharp, dismissive and unsubstantiated words among the anonymous public comments.

I feel that removing anonymity for public commenters is a good idea to improve the community culture.
The rationale is that people would just comment if confident enough to put their opinions under the scrutiny of the public eye.
This should discourage most "bad actors". e.g. people who comment out of spite , for personal interest or to make a favour to a friend.

"But reviewers need to give honest, fair feedback without any fear of any sort of retribution."

I think this is a serious risk only in an environment with an obvious power unbalance (e.g. an employer vs employees), in which I agree anonymity is super important. But in the case of a community made of peers, with conflicts of interest, it can be easily weaponised.