The academic circle is in an uproar. The "unveiling" of ICLR has gone viral across the internet, exposing all the reviewers' identities.

Woke up to big news! ICLR has become a huge social embarrassment. The information of all authors and reviewers has been made public, turning the double-blind review into a real Open Review!

Last night, the academic community experienced an unprecedented "public execution."

OpenReview for ICLR 2026 had a major "unmasking." A vulnerability exposed the double-blind review process.

By simply entering the submission ID into a specific API link, you can instantly access the complete information of all authors, reviewers, and Area Chairs of the paper:

Name, email, institution, and personal resume

Even worse, not only can you see the names, but the system also spits out the reviewers' initial scores and comments on the paper.

This might be the most absurd night in the era of top AI conferences.

The ICLR organizing committee issued an urgent response:

On November 27th, ICLR became aware of a software vulnerability that leaked the names of authors, reviewers, and area chairs.

This vulnerability affected all conferences hosted on OpenReview. We appreciate the OpenReview team for quickly fixing this issue.

Moreover, ICLR directly warned that if anyone spreads any leaked information, their paper will be "rejected" immediately! Not only that, it will be impossible for them to participate in ICLR in the future.

Sure enough, some people's papers have already been blocked due to self - exposing information.

Some desensitized data analysis

Some reviewers have received emails from authors asking for score increases, and some authors are even willing to pay for high scores.

Source: Xiaohongshu user 631D1AA7

Reviewers really can't sleep well! Some netizens are glad that they didn't participate in the ICLR review.

So, a new meme was born:

ICLR = I Can Locate Reviewer.

ICLR's information leak has caused an uproar in the academic circle

The impact of this incident is huge!

Many academic giants have called on people not to spread, share, or use the leaked data, as this concerns the fairness of the entire academic community.

Academician Tian Yuandong believes that this leak is "crazy"!

Xie Saining also posted that this is the "strangest moment" in the scientific field and hopes that everyone will jointly protect the already fragile academic community.

Why is this leak so serious?

The double - blind review system has always been the foundation of academic fairness.

As a professor said, after you submit your painstakingly written paper for review, it's hard to separate the reviewer from your hard - earned work.

If you know which specific professor or reviewer gave a "negative review," you might feel resentful for decades.

Because a "negative review" and "rejection" not only mean that years of work have gone down the drain but also a blow to personal confidence and ability.

In other communities, some people have given some "extreme remarks" through rapid data analysis:

For example, reviewers from South Korea and Russia gave the lowest scores!

More analysis and comments have given "even worse" conclusions.

For example, after verifying the vulnerability method, some people think that this vulnerability reveals some black holes in academia:

Your painstakingly written paper may be reviewed by people who are not in the field and lack the corresponding background, and the area chairs turn a blind eye.

Some people think that this leak can "promote" the reviewers' sense of responsibility in reverse.

For example, ICLR should remind reviewers in the future to take others' academic achievements seriously and never write content that they dare not sign with their real names.

Some people even cheer, believing that people tend to "talk nonsense" in an anonymous state.

But once their identities are exposed, reviewers will be more responsible.

Sure enough, some people have used the leaked information to locate their reviewers, and it turns out that the reviewer is the author of a competing paper!

Moreover, this reviewer gave a malicious negative review and ignored the author's refutation within a week.

This is simply a "dark forest"!

He said "angrily," can he report this to the organizing committee?

But someone in the comments clearly told him that it's not feasible.

This is a paradox. The double - blind review is supposed to be anonymous for both sides, and there should be no chance to know who the reviewer of the paper is.

This just confirms what was said above:

"It's hard to separate the reviewer from your painstakingly written work."

When facing ICLR's "stern statement," some scholars or doctoral students said:

Where was ICLR when we complained about those baseless reviews?

Some people also said that the positive impact of this incident is that no one will dare to use AI for review in the future.

Are anonymous reviewers friends or enemies?

Of course, an important point mentioned by Tian Yuandong is also worth noting. Anonymous reviewers contribute their time "for free" to the academic community.

They are our friends, not enemies.

As the following person said, anonymous reviewers have to make huge judgments on papers without any compensation