Review Timeline
- 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
- Reviews include summary, strengths, weaknesses, suggestions, and scores
- Discussion Period
- Reviewers see other reviews
- Discuss disagreements
- Update reviews if needed
- Identify questions for authors
- Author Response (Week 6)
- Authors see all reviews
- Write response addressing key concerns
- Provide additional results and/or clarification
- Post-Response Discussion
- Reviewers evaluate response
- Update recommendations
- AC moderates discussion
- Reach consensus where possible
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Paper Summary
- Problem statement and motivation
- Key methodological approaches
- Main results and conclusions
- 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
For Authors: Writing Effective Rebuttals
- Opening Statement
- Thank reviewers
- Highlight key improvements
- Address major concerns
- 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
For Reviewers: Evaluating Responses
- Review Update Process
- Read author response carefully
- Assess how well authors addressed concerns
- Update scores if warranted
- 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?