Openreview 网站逆天 bug，致 ICLR/NeurIPS 等会议所有审稿人信息被泄露

从昨天凌晨到现在一直在吃瓜 🤣

https://www.jiqizhixin.com/articles/2025-11-28-2

https://github.com/justiclr/iclr10000

那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？那我问你？
（不用数了一共 40 个 🤣）

这可以当 benchmark 发论文了 🤣

我靠已经有人开始无差别攻击了....

我不知道这回 PC 们咋收场了

你还别说，刨去道德问题真是一个不错的图结构

早上起来看见泄漏了还觉得没啥大事，水群的时候看到武理那个人大头了，然后越冲浪越绷不住

XJTU 毕业的博士，毕业后去武汉理工当 AP

交又赢

笑晕了，咋还有🦶的事，之前我只知道是武理的🤣🤣

最新消息，分数被回滚了

所有文章被重新指派 AC，新 AC 将重新对 review 进行打分

所有 reviewer 做出的回复和涨分均被删除，作者可以继续 rebuttal，但不会再有 reviewer 进行回复

Dear EEVEE,

You are receiving this email as an author of a submitted paper to ICLR 2026.

tl;dr
The ICLR organizers have been notified of an OpenReview bug that leaked the names of authors, reviewers, and area chairs for all conferences. While the bug has now been fixed, we are taking the following measures to prevent collusion:

1. We will be re-assigning each paper to a new area chair.
2. We will be reverting reviews and scores to their state before the discussion period. Reviewers will not be able to change their scores or participate in the rebuttal discussion further. Authors will be able to continue to post responses through the end of the rebuttal period (Dec 03 '25 09:00 PM UTC). The new area chairs will use the original reviews and the author responses when recommending an accept or reject decision.
3. We are disabling public commenting on all submissions to prevent abuse.

Any attempt to use the leaked information to harass or dox a member of the community, or manipulate the peer review process, is a violation of the ICLR code of conduct, and will result in desk rejection and ban from the conference. If you are aware of any attempt to contact, threaten, or influence the reviewers of any submission, please report it immediately to program-chairs@iclr.cc.

Background
On Nov 27, ICLR was notified of a software bug that leaked the names of authors, reviewers, and area chairs for all ICLR submissions. The bug impacted all conferences hosted on OpenReview, and we are grateful to the OpenReview team for fixing the issue quickly. More information about this bug and its mitigation is available in OpenReview's official statement.

Because this incident enabled deanonymization of all papers and reviews, it significantly increases the possibility of collusion attempts, such as authors intimidating or bribing reviewers to raise their scores. After the public disclosure of this bug, we began to receive reports of collusion attempts and additionally observed an anomalous uptick in reviewers increasing their scores.

Response
We understand that this incident deeply impacts our community, and we take your concerns seriously. We are taking the following actions:

To avoid collusion, we are preventing reviewers from changing their scores or participating in discussion going forward. Due to uncertainty around when the exploit was introduced, we are also reverting all reviews and their scores to their state before the start of the discussion period. We are continuing to allow authors to post responses and comments until the end of the rebuttal period.

Additionally, we will be assigning a new area chair to every submission. The new area chair will be tasked to carefully consider how the author response addresses reviewer concerns when deciding on their accept or reject recommendation. We recognize that it will be frustrating to authors and reviewers to have reviews reverted after the initial rebuttal process, and we additionally recognize that we are asking area chairs to perform additional work, but we believe this is the best course of action to prevent widespread collusion that could undermine the scientific integrity of ICLR.

We are disabling public commenting on all submissions to prevent abuse. We have removed public comments that exploit this information.

Anyone who attempts to use the information to harass, dox, or threaten a reviewer or author, or manipulate the peer review process, are in violation of the ICLR Code of Conduct, and they will have their own submissions desk rejected as well as banned from the conference for multiple years. If you are aware of any attempt to contact, threaten, or influence the reviewers of any submission, please report it immediately to program-chairs@iclr.cc.

The ICLR team will work closely with the OpenReview team in their response to the incident. OpenReview will be notifying all deanonymized users via email shortly. OpenReview will be thoroughly analyzing who exploited the system, and they are working with multi-national law enforcement about consequences.

Your Role as Author
Please continue to post rebuttals and responses to your submission(s) with the awareness that they will be read and taken into close consideration by the area chair. However, your responses will no longer result in discussion from reviewers.

Thank you for your understanding and continued participation in ICLR.

Sincerely,
ICLR 2026 Program Chairs

ICLR: I Can Locate Reviewers

我趣怎么自动翻译了

现在好像保留讨论了

Dear EEVEE,

You are receiving this email as an author of a submitted paper to ICLR 2026.

We have heard from a few authors who are frustrated by the fact that review scores are being reverted to their pre-discussion state and no further reviewer discussions or public comments are allowed. We understand your frustration. Many of you spent a significant amount of work on your rebuttal and the subsequent ensuing discussion.

We want to clarify that only the review itself ("Official Review") is being reverted: your response and prior discussion with reviewers will remain intact and will be considered by the area chair. In addition, you have the option as an author to post additional comments on the forum. You can use this opportunity to post a summary comment giving any other necessary information to the AC.

The AC's decision-making process:

• ACs will have a longer period to write their meta-reviews.
• ACs will be explicitly instructed to take your response and the prior discussion into account.
• ACs will be asked to estimate how the reviewer's impressions would have changed had the discussion period not been cut short.
• We will be recruiting emergency ACs to offload effort from any ACs who tell us the workload is too high for them to complete.

Please note that ACs have always had broad discretion in making decisions. Reviewer scores are one signal, but they have never been the sole deciding factor. The AC has always needed to take into consideration author responses, reviewer engagement, and their own assessment when writing their meta-review.

Why Reverting Back? We made the decision to revert the discussion back to prior to the discussion period because the leak occurred as early as November 11th (before the discussion). We consequently have to assume that collusion could have occurred at any point during the discussion phase. After extensive discussion, we found reverting the scores to the beginning of the discussion phase to be the fairest course of action for all authors.

We appreciate your understanding as we navigate this challenge together, and remain available to address any further questions or concerns you may have.

Sincerely,
ICLR Program Chairs

@Zethes can you share the json file again? I want to do some analysis on it

Hello, I wasn’t the one who created this repository; I only forwarded it. The repository is now unavailable, and there’s nothing I can do about it. I don’t have any backups of the related data.

ok thank you

wtf，怎么有老外摸过来了 🤣

你站的 SEO 相当好（