> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://emory.gitbook.io/ai-research-practicum/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://emory.gitbook.io/ai-research-practicum/peer-review.md).

# Peer Review

## Review Timeline

1. **Paper Submission**
   * Authors submit manuscript
   * Paper assigned to Area Chair (AC)
   * Initial desk reject check for formatting/scope
2. **Initial Review Period**
   * AC assigns 3-4 reviewers
   * Reviewers submit independent assessments
   * Reviews include summary, strengths, weaknesses, suggestions, and scores
3. **Discussion Period**
   * Reviewers see other reviews
   * Discuss disagreements
   * Update reviews if needed
   * Identify questions for authors
4. **Author Response** (Week 6)
   * Authors see all reviews
   * Write response addressing key concerns
   * Provide additional results and/or clarification
5. **Post-Response Discussion**
   * Reviewers evaluate response
   * Update recommendations
   * AC moderates discussion
   * Reach consensus where possible
6. **Meta-Review Period**
   * AC writes meta-review summarizing:
     * Paper's key contributions
     * Main points of reviewer discussion
     * Areas of agreement/disagreement
     * Author response effectiveness
     * Final recommendation with justification
   * AC considers:
     * Review quality and thoroughness
     * Discussion participation
     * Response to author clarifications
     * Broader impact and novelty
     * Reviewer expertise and confidence
7. **Senior Area Chair Review** (Week 9)
   * SACs review all recommendations in their area
   * Ensure consistent standards across ACs
   * Flag papers for Program Chairs (PCs)' attention
   * Make strategic recommendations about:
     * Emerging research directions
     * Balance of paper types
     * Novel vs. incremental contributions
     * Experimental vs. theoretical work
8. **Final Decision**
   * Program Chairs consider:
     * AC recommendations
     * SAC strategic input
     * Overall conference balance
   * Make final accept/reject decisions

## Key Components of a Research Paper Review

1. **Paper Summary**
   * Problem statement and motivation
   * Key methodological approaches
   * Main results and conclusions
2. **Technical Strength Analysis**
   * Methodology soundness
   * Experimental design
   * Results interpretation
   * Statistical validity
3. **Critical Evaluation**
   * Innovation and contribution
   * Limitations and assumptions
   * Comparison with related work
   * Potential impact
4. **Improvement Suggestions**
   * Specific recommendations for enhancement
   * Additional experiments or analyses
   * Clarity and presentation improvements
5. **Overall Assessment**
   * Score on 1-5 scale with justification
   * Publication recommendation

## For Authors: Writing Effective Rebuttals

1. **Opening Statement**
   * Thank reviewers
   * Highlight key improvements
   * Address major concerns
2. **Response Organization**
   * Group similar concerns across reviews
   * Address each main point with:
     * Original concern
     * Your response
     * Planned changes
   * Use bullet points for clarity
   * Reference specific sections/page numbers
3. **Response Strategies**
   * Acknowledge valid criticisms
   * Provide additional results/analysis if available
   * Clarify misunderstandings with evidence
   * Explain practical limitations
   * Be specific about planned revisions

## For Reviewers: Evaluating Responses

1. **Review Update Process**
   * Read author response carefully
   * Assess how well authors addressed concerns
   * Update scores if warranted
   * Provide brief feedback on response
2. **Assessment Criteria**
   * Completeness: All major concerns addressed?
   * Clarity: Clear and specific responses?
   * Evidence: Supporting data provided?
   * Feasibility: Proposed changes realistic?