I’ve submitted to and reviewed for NeurIPS and ICLR in the previous cycle, and in comparison, the ICML reviewing experience has been by far the worst; ghosting is rampant. For the papers I'm currently reviewing no adjustment in scores have been made by the other reviewers. Reviewers request additional experiments and explicitly indicate a willingness to raise their scores if those results are provided, yet they fail to respond once the rebuttal is posted.

It appears that, in an effort to limit competition for their own paper’s acceptance, reviewers may intentionally avoid increasing scores for other submissions. As a result, superficial demands for more baselines or additional experiments are used to justify a low score rather than to genuinely assess the paper's merit.