Reviewers provide expert, independent evaluation of submitted papers to help editors make sound accept/reject decisions. Your review is shared with the authors after the editorial decision is made — it is one of the most visible parts of the peer-review process.
As a reviewer you will typically be assigned papers in your area of expertise. The editor assigns reviewers; you do not select your own papers. Your review should be:
- Constructive — provide actionable feedback even for papers you recommend rejecting.
- Specific — cite section numbers, page numbers, or concrete examples.
- Timely — a review submitted two weeks late can delay publication for an entire conference round.
- Confidential — do not discuss assigned papers outside the review system.
When an editor assigns a paper to you, you will receive an email notification. The notification includes the paper title, abstract, and the review deadline.
Download the manuscript from the review workspace. The file is named with the internal Paper ID; the author's name and institution are hidden in double-blind configurations.
First-pass Reading
On first read, focus on the overall contribution:
- What is the main claim or contribution of the paper?
- Is the contribution novel and significant?
- Is the methodology appropriate and sound?
- Do the results support the conclusions?
Detailed Evaluation
On the second pass, assess each dimension the conference criteria specify — typically originality, technical quality, clarity, and relevance. Take notes tied to specific pages or sections; these become your review comments.
Click Submit Review on the assignment detail page. The review form has the following sections:
Comments to Authors
This section is shared with the authors after the editorial decision. Be thorough and constructive. Structure your feedback clearly — separate major concerns from minor ones, and include specific references to the paper. Avoid insulting or dismissive language.
Confidential Comments to Editor
This section is not shown to authors. Use it for concerns you cannot raise openly — suspected plagiarism, ethical issues, or observations about the author's identity in a double-blind process. Do not duplicate your public comments here.
Review Recommendation
Criteria Scoring
The conference may define a set of scored review criteria (e.g. Originality, Methodology, Clarity, Relevance). Each criterion is scored on a scale set by the conference organiser — typically 1–5 or 1–10. Hover over each score for its description if shown.
| Criterion | What to evaluate |
|---|---|
| Originality / Novelty | Is the work new? Does it advance the field beyond existing literature? |
| Technical Quality | Is the methodology sound? Are experiments/proofs correct? |
| Clarity / Presentation | Is the paper well-written and clearly organised? |
| Relevance | Does the topic fit the conference scope and themes? |
| Significance | Will this work influence future research or practice? |
Attaching a File
You may optionally attach an annotated version of the manuscript or a supplementary review document. This is useful for pointing out specific figures, equations, or typographical issues that are hard to describe in text.
The review form auto-saves every few minutes as a draft while you are typing. You can also click Save Draft manually at any time. Drafts are private — only you and the editor can see that a draft exists (the editor cannot read the draft content until you submit).
- To return to a draft, click the paper in My Assignments and then Continue Review.
- Drafts are preserved across sessions — you can start a review on one device and finish on another.
- Submitting the review finalises it and removes the draft state.
If the editor requests a second review after the author submits a revision, you will receive another email notification. The assignment reappears in My Assignments with a new deadline and a round number (R2, R3, …).
When reviewing a revision:
- Download the revised manuscript — the round number is shown in the filename.
- Read the author's response letter (if provided) before reading the revision. It maps each of your comments to changes made.
- Focus on whether your previous concerns have been addressed adequately, rather than raising entirely new issues.
- If concerns were not addressed, explain clearly what is still missing.
If you have been assigned as a session chair for a conference session, this appears under My Sessions in the sidebar. As a session chair you are responsible for moderating the session and evaluating presentations.
Before the Session
- Review the list of papers and presenters assigned to your session.
- Prepare one or two questions for each paper in case the audience does not ask.
- Confirm the session venue, time, and AV setup with the conference organiser.
During the Session
- Introduce each presenter with their name, institution, and paper title.
- Time each presentation according to the slot length defined by the organiser.
- Moderate the Q&A — ensure questions are constructive and time-bounded.
Presentation Evaluation
After the session, complete a presentation evaluation for each paper in your session. Access the evaluation form from My Sessions → Evaluate Presentations. The form covers:
- Presentation quality (clarity, engagement, visual aids)
- Technical depth demonstrated during Q&A
- Time management
- Overall presentation score
The peer-review process depends on the integrity of every participant. As a reviewer you are expected to:
- Maintain confidentiality — the content of assigned papers is confidential until published. Do not cite or reference them in your own work.
- Declare conflicts — if you recognise an author, institution, or know you have competing interests, decline the assignment and notify the editor.
- Avoid AI-generated reviews — using AI tools to generate your review without substantive personal engagement violates the peer-review standards of most conferences.
- Be timely — late reviews harm authors who are waiting for a decision. If you cannot complete a review on time, notify the editor immediately.
- Be fair — apply the same standard to papers in your area and those at the edge of your expertise. Acknowledge when a paper is outside your primary domain in your confidential comments.