Writing a review
How to claim assignments, write a high-quality review, and meet your deadlines.
Thank you for reviewing. Peer review is what makes a conference's program trustworthy, and the authors will read your feedback carefully.
Find your assignments
Open the Reviewer Console from the sidebar (a PC Member opens the PC Member Console, the same console under their role's name). Your assigned submissions are listed with their deadlines and current status.
If you spot a conflict on a paper you've been assigned, raise it immediately from the assignment page, and don't review the paper. Your Area Chair will reassign it.
Write the review
- 1
Read the paper end to end before opening the review form. On the review page, Download PDF opens the paper, and Supplementary lists the authors' extra files (code, data, audio or video). Click a file to open it in a new tab: audio, video and PDFs play or show in the browser, and other files (such as ZIP) download. Beside them, a badge shows the paper's submission category, coloured by its type (cyan for a paper, purple for an abstract, blue for a proposal), and a green Blind Agreement badge.
- 2
The review deadline is shown in red, in bold, just above Write Review (and above Submit while your review is a draft), in the program's time zone. Once you submit, or after the review period closes, the deadline stays in the panel in smaller, lighter text.
- 3
Use the review form the program set for the paper's category; papers in different categories may have different forms. Most fields are mandatory, for example summary, strengths, weaknesses, detailed comments, and a numeric score. Text boxes have no minimum or maximum length; the word count under each box, in reviews and meta reviews alike, is only for your information.
- 4
Be concrete. Cite section numbers and equations when you point out a flaw. "Section 3.2 is unclear" is more useful than "the paper is unclear."
- 5
Keep your tone professional. Authors will read your review.
- 6
Save as draft as often as you like. Submit when you are happy. You can edit a submitted review until the review deadline.
Meta-reviews and discussion
If you are an Area Chair or Senior Area Chair, you'll also see a meta-review stage. Open the discussion thread for each paper, summarize the reviewers' positions, and write a clear recommendation for the Program Chair.
In a double blind program you never see who wrote a paper: names, co-authors and original file names are left out before the paper reaches you. Other reviewers appear as Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, numbered per paper. You see their reviews only after you submit your own, and never their drafts or confidential comments. Messages meant for the chairs or the area chairs are not shown to you. These rules are applied by the server, so they hold on every screen.
Deadlines
The review window is shown on each assignment. Each paper follows the dates of its own category, so two papers in one program can have different review deadlines. Reviewing opens on the program's Review site opens date (or after the submission deadline when there is none). When the Program Chair turns on review reminders, you get an email on the days they chose (for example 7 days and 2 days before the deadline) listing the papers still waiting for your review. A saved draft does not count as submitted. Submit the review and the reminders stop. Late reviews are visible to the Program Chair and may be excluded from the decision.