Loading...
Paper Submission
Authors submit manuscript
Paper assigned to Area Chair (AC)
Initial desk reject check for formatting/scope
Initial Review Period
AC assigns 3-4 reviewers
Reviewers submit independent assessments
Discussion Period
Reviewers see other reviews
Discuss disagreements
Author Response (Week 6)
Authors see all reviews
Write response addressing key concerns
Post-Response Discussion
Reviewers evaluate response
Update recommendations
Meta-Review Period
AC writes meta-review summarizing:
Paper's key contributions
Senior Area Chair Review (Week 9)
SACs review all recommendations in their area
Ensure consistent standards across ACs
Final Decision
Program Chairs consider:
AC recommendations
Paper Summary
Problem statement and motivation
Key methodological approaches
Opening Statement
Thank reviewers
Highlight key improvements
Review Update Process
Read author response carefully
Assess how well authors addressed concerns
Identify questions for authors
Reach consensus where possible
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
Make strategic recommendations about:
Emerging research directions
Balance of paper types
Novel vs. incremental contributions
Experimental vs. theoretical work
Overall conference balance
Make final accept/reject decisions
Technical Strength Analysis
Methodology soundness
Experimental design
Results interpretation
Statistical validity
Critical Evaluation
Innovation and contribution
Limitations and assumptions
Comparison with related work
Potential impact
Improvement Suggestions
Specific recommendations for enhancement
Additional experiments or analyses
Clarity and presentation improvements
Overall Assessment
Score on 1-5 scale with justification
Publication recommendation
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
Response Strategies
Acknowledge valid criticisms
Provide additional results/analysis if available
Clarify misunderstandings with evidence
Explain practical limitations
Be specific about planned revisions
Provide brief feedback on response
Assessment Criteria
Completeness: All major concerns addressed?
Clarity: Clear and specific responses?
Evidence: Supporting data provided?
Feasibility: Proposed changes realistic?