Here’s a handy table for the summer conferences.<\/p>\n
| Conference<\/td>\n | Deadline<\/td>\n | Reviewer Targeting<\/td>\n | Double Blind<\/td>\n | Author Feedback<\/td>\n | Location<\/td>\n | Date<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| ICML<\/a> (wrong ICML<\/a>)<\/td>\n | January 26<\/td>\n | Yes<\/td>\n | Yes<\/td>\n | Yes<\/td>\n | Montreal, Canada<\/td>\n | June 14-17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| COLT<\/a><\/td>\n | February 13<\/td>\n | No<\/td>\n | No<\/td>\n | Yes<\/td>\n | Montreal<\/td>\n | June 19-21<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| UAI<\/a><\/td>\n | March 13<\/td>\n | No<\/td>\n | Yes<\/td>\n | No<\/td>\n | Montreal<\/td>\n | June 19-21<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| KDD<\/a><\/td>\n | February 2\/6<\/td>\n | No<\/td>\n | No<\/td>\n | No<\/td>\n | Paris, France<\/td>\n | June 28-July 1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n Reviewer targeting is new this year. The idea is that many poor decisions happen because the papers go to reviewers who are unqualified, and the hope is that allowing authors to point out who is qualified results in better decisions. In my experience, this is a reasonable idea to test.<\/p>\n Both UAI and COLT are experimenting this year as well with double blind and author feedback, respectively. Of the two, I believe author feedback is more important, as I’ve seen it make a difference. However, I still consider double blind reviewing a net win, as it’s a substantial public commitment to fairness.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Here’s a handy table for the summer conferences. Conference Deadline Reviewer Targeting Double Blind Author Feedback Location Date ICML (wrong ICML) January 26 Yes Yes Yes Montreal, Canada June 14-17 COLT February 13 No No Yes Montreal June 19-21 UAI March 13 No Yes No Montreal June 19-21 KDD February 2\/6 No No No Paris, … <\/p>\n |