The trouble started on May 9th, when a researcher went to submit to the ICML FM4LS workshop — a venue focused on foundation models for life sciences — and found the submission portal had closed ahead of schedule. No announcement. No explanation in the thread. Just a closed link where an open one should have been. That's a small thing that costs people real time, especially for researchers juggling multiple deadlines across a conference season that has grown genuinely exhausting. Then, nine days later, a second thread surfaced asking whether anyone had heard back from the ICML 2026 GlobalSouthML workshop. The silence there reads differently — not a closed door, but an open one nobody is walking through. Two workshops, two distinct problems: one apparently closing too early, one apparently going quiet on decisions. The pattern doesn't yet constitute a crisis, but it's the kind of administrative friction that accumulates badly.
If confirmed, here is what this means. For the FM4LS workshop, researchers who missed a prematurely closed window lose a targeted venue for life sciences and AI crossover work — and that community is small enough that a single missed workshop cycle matters. For GlobalSouthML, the stakes are sharper. That workshop exists explicitly to lower barriers for researchers from underrepresented regions, and delayed or absent decisions create asymmetric harm: well-resourced labs can absorb uncertainty, early-career researchers from constrained environments often cannot. Travel budgets, visa applications, institutional approvals — all of these chain off a decision notification. A slow response from that particular workshop is not just an administrative inconvenience. It undermines the stated purpose of running it.
Watch for any official communication from the ICML 2026 organising committee or the individual workshop chairs addressing either the FM4LS portal closure or the GlobalSouthML decision timeline — a single clear update would either resolve the confusion or confirm something has gone genuinely wrong.
<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>ECCV reviews should be out by 2nd May. Since no exact time was specified this year, they’ll likely be released sometime within the next 48
<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>Anyone else submitted a workshop proposal to ECCV this year? The deadline for getting a decision was yesterday, but we got no reply yet.</p>
<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>As a fellow ML researcher, I feel disheartened and discouraged after seeing the experiences of people who submitted their work to ICML 2026.
<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>Today officially marks the end of the author-reviewer discussion period. The acknowledgement deadline has already passed by over 3 days and our
<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>Hi, I am currently making the jump to ML from theoretical physics. I just got done with the review period, went from 4333 to 4433, but the
<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>BMVC reviews will be out tomorrow. Making this parent thread for discussion. All the best everyone!</p> </div><!-- SC_ON -->   submitted by
<table> <tr><td> <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1sj76a2/just_did_an_analysis_on_iclr_2025_vs_2026_scores/"> <img alt="Just did an analysis on ICLR 2025
<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I've been seeing mainly discussions about the main track. Any ACs or other reviewers here who know if the position paper track is following
NewsHive monitors these sources continuously. All signal titles above link to the original reporting.
Intelligence by NewsHive. Need help navigating what this means for your business? Contact GeekyBee →