Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a significant incident in the academic community regarding a vulnerability in the ICLR review process, which allowed unauthorized access to reviewer identities and scores, leading to widespread concern and subsequent actions by OpenReview to address the issue [1][4][7]. Group 1: Incident Overview - The ICLR review process was compromised, allowing individuals to discover reviewer identities and scores by manipulating a specific URL [1][2]. - Many authors were shocked to find their papers received low scores from reviewers who were acquaintances, raising concerns about personal biases affecting the review process [3]. - In response to the incident, ICLR announced a complete reassignment of Area Chairs and reset all review scores and comments to their pre-discussion state [4][5]. Group 2: OpenReview's Response - OpenReview confirmed the occurrence of an automated attack targeting ICLR 2026, which led to the unauthorized release of reviewer identities [11][12]. - The platform has taken measures to enhance security and is conducting a thorough investigation, including hiring external cybersecurity firms and performing code audits [9][12]. - Approximately 97% of OpenReview venues were unaffected by the incident, with only a small percentage experiencing any issues [11]. Group 3: Community Reactions - The academic community has shown support for OpenReview, with calls for understanding and recognition of the challenges faced by the platform's small team [15][17]. - Discussions in the comments highlighted that negative sentiments were more directed towards the ICLR organizing committee rather than OpenReview itself [20]. - Suggestions were made for potential reforms, such as disclosing reviewer identities after a certain period to promote accountability and transparency in the review process [22].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a significant bug in the OpenReview platform that exposed the identities and scores of reviewers for academic papers, leading to various reactions within the AI community [2]. Group 1: OpenReview Bug - The bug in OpenReview is system-level, allowing users to view reviewer information for papers from various AI conferences by altering a specific part of the URL [4]. - This incident has caused a stir in the academic community, revealing personal biases and competitive behaviors that resulted in low scores for some papers [2]. Group 2: Reviewer Suspicion Analysis - A total of 196 suspicious reviewers were identified, with 120 frequent collaboration relationships noted [5]. - The analysis highlighted several reviewers with a suspicion score of 5, indicating extremely inconsistent ratings and excessive rating ranges, with average ratings varying significantly [5]. - One reviewer had an average rating of 8.00 with a standard deviation of 0.00, suggesting lenient ratings and high confidence, raising concerns about the review process integrity [5].