5. But apart from that, I'm more and more convinced we need a better incentive structure around this, maybe some kind of "submitting-reviewing credit system" where you earn credits for doing (good) reviews, and you need to spend those credits when you submit papers.

4. This would be quite similar to ARR (ACL Rolling Review) system, but without a promise that if you submit by date X, the review will be finished in time to be considered for the conference Y.

3. I think this could be realized with TMLR like reviewing process and upon acceptance, the reviewers can nominate the paper to be considered for whatever the most appropriate upcoming conference is (like what TMLR is currently doing for ICLR).

1. I second the sentiment that TMLR is amazing. If I had a choice, I’d only review for TMLR.
2. Maybe it’s time for conferences to only present papers at the level equivalent to what is now “nominated for a spotlight/oral”.

I understood that they got super high scores "in general", which might or might not be a good thing depending on whether you agree with them :D but since that's the case, I'm jealous of your lucky draw!

rightfully so?

As an unironic take on "LLM Science", I like this bit by @dbusbridge.bsky.social:
45:04
icml.cc/virtual/2025...

Thanks both for the kind words! 😊