ICML Gold Review and Academic Community

I am happy to share that I was recognised as a Gold Reviewer by ICML 2026.

This recognition means a lot to me, not only because of the reviewing work itself, but because it made me reflect again on the kind of academic community I want to contribute to.

During the reviewing process, there were moments that made me reflect on the difference between rigorous criticism and dismissive judgement. When I saw criticism that felt dismissive or unconstructive, I didn’t stay silent. Not because every paper deserves acceptance, but because serious work deserves to be engaged with responsibly.

To me, reviewing is not only a form of gatekeeping. It is also one of the moments where we are asked to meet someone else’s work with seriousness, respect, and care. A review does not need to be positive, and high standards should not be compromised. But if we are given the responsibility to judge a piece of work, we should also make a genuine effort to understand it, explain our judgement clearly, and offer feedback that may actually help. Respect is not a favour we give only to work we already like. It is the basis of any fair intellectual exchange.

I have been thinking about this beyond reviewing as well, partly because of some recent academic conversations I have had. I understand that academia often rewards visible confidence: being quick to judge, quick to categorise, quick to display expertise, and quick to sound certain. But when these habits come before a serious effort to understand, “being sharp” can slip into arrogance and become a performance of authority rather than a way of helping the conversation move forward. This troubles me not only because it is unkind, but because it is not rigorous. If we judge others before doing the basic work of understanding them, the problem is not just one of tone; it is also a failure of scholarship.

Still, I do not want to pass this on. I do not want to become more toxic because I have encountered toxicity, or more dismissive because I have been around dismissiveness. I am grateful to my mentors, colleagues, and collaborators who have shown me, again and again, that rigor, generosity, and kindness can coexist.

There are many ways to contribute to a research community. Writing papers is one. Reviewing carefully is one. Giving feedback that genuinely tries to help is one. Speaking up when something feels unfair is one. Treating others with respect and kindness, even when the system does not directly reward it, is also one. I believe making the environment better should itself be part of what we value.

In the acknowledgements of my DPhil thesis, I wrote:

“May this work prove useful, and may we all, in our own ways, leave the world a little better than we found it.”

That is what I want to keep trying to do — in research, in service, and in the way I meet other people.