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?