Back to Home

Responsible Reviewing Initiative

Guidelines for timely, high-quality peer review

Core Principle: Partnership Model

Submitting papers creates a partnership between authors, reviewers, and the conference. Reviewers—many of whom are also authors—bear a professional obligation to deliver timely, high-quality feedback. This is essential to sustaining the conference's standards and improving outcomes for the whole community.

Enforcement Mechanisms

1Reviews Withholding Policy

Authors and co-authors who serve as reviewers are subject to the following conditions:

  • Review Access: You cannot access reviews of your own papers until you complete all assigned reviews
  • Late Submissions: Reviewers who submit reviews late face access restrictions to their feedback for up to five days of the rebuttal period
  • Reminders: Reviewers receive multiple reminders before deadlines

2Desk Rejection Sanction

For persistent quality issues with reviews:

  • Flagging: Area Chairs and Senior Area Chairs will flag substandard reviews, including placeholder submissions
  • Notification: Reviewers are notified and required to address deficiencies
  • Consequence: Persistent problems verified by Program Chairs may result in desk rejection at the meta-review stage for that reviewer's own papers

Scope and Expectations

Main Track

All responsible reviewing measures apply fully

Datasets & Benchmarks

All responsible reviewing measures apply equally

What Makes a Quality Review?

  • Constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work
  • Specific comments referencing paper content, not generic statements
  • Fair assessment of both strengths and weaknesses
  • Justified scores with clear reasoning
  • Timely submission before deadlines
  • Engagement during discussion and rebuttal phases

What to Avoid

  • Placeholder reviews: Submitting incomplete or minimal reviews just to meet deadlines
  • Generic feedback: Comments that could apply to any paper without specific references
  • Unjustified scores: Ratings without clear explanation or reasoning
  • Disengagement: Failing to respond during discussion periods
  • Late submissions: Consistently missing review deadlines

A Message to Our Community

Responsible reviewing is a partnership that will improve outcomes for the whole community. We ask all reviewers to prioritize their commitment to the peer review process. By working together, we can maintain the high standards that make our conferences valuable for researchers worldwide.

Related Policies

Code of EthicsCode of Conduct