Reviewing Papers
This guide covers the full review workflow — from finding your assigned papers to submitting a complete, high-quality review. We've structured this to be as efficient as possible for experienced reviewers.
1. Viewing Your Assignments
Your assigned papers are accessible from two places:
- Personal dashboard (
/dashboard/reviews/) — Shows ALL your review assignments across ALL conferences you belong to. Useful if you are reviewing for more than one conference simultaneously. - Conference reviews page (
/conferences/[slug]/reviews/) — Shows assignments for this specific conference only. This is the recommended starting point during an active review period.
Both views show the same core information: paper numbers, titles, topics, due dates, and your current review status for each assignment.
2. The Assignments List
The review assignments page presents one card per assigned paper.
Each card shows:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| SUB-NNN | The submission number (e.g. SUB-001). |
| Status badge | One of: Pending (not started), In Progress (draft saved), Submitted (review submitted), Published (review released to authors). |
| Decision badge | Your current recommendation, if you have already saved or submitted one. |
| Title | The paper title. Author names and affiliations are hidden in double-blind conferences. |
| Abstract excerpt | A short preview of the abstract. |
| Topic badges | The subjects the paper was submitted under. |
| Due date | Your deadline. The card border turns red when the deadline is overdue. |
Click the paper title or the Review button to open the review page. Once submitted, the button changes to View.
Double-blind review: In a double-blind conference, you will not see author names, affiliations, or any identifying information. Authors cannot see your identity either. This is enforced automatically by the system — it is not a display setting you can override.
3. Opening a Paper to Review
The review page has two sections:
-
Paper summary — The submission number, anonymized title, abstract, keywords, and topics, displayed in an academic-styled layout. Read this section carefully before filling in the review form. If the conference provides a full-paper PDF, download and read it before scoring.
-
Your Review card — The review form, scrolled below the paper summary. The card header shows your current status (In Progress or Submitted) and the submission timestamp if already submitted.
Tip: Open the PDF in a separate window or tab so you can refer to the paper while writing your review. Most reviewers find it helpful to take notes in a text editor as they read, then transfer those notes into the form fields.
4. Review Deadline Banner
A deadline banner appears at the top of the review page showing the due date. The banner changes color based on urgency:
- Normal — More than 3 days remaining.
- Urgent (amber) — 3 days or fewer remaining. Shows a countdown: "Due in 2 days".
- Overdue (red) — The deadline has passed. Contact the organizer if you still need to submit.
If the organizer has set a custom deadline for your specific assignment (rather than the conference-wide review deadline), the banner shows "(custom)" next to the date.
5. The Review Form
The exact fields on your review form are configured by the conference organizers. Each conference defines its own review criteria. The form fields and their types vary by conference.
Field Types
Organizers can include any combination of the following field types:
| Type | Appearance | Example use |
|---|---|---|
| Scale | Clickable numbered buttons (1 to N, where N is configured per field) | Overall score, Confidence, Originality |
| Text area | Multi-line text box | Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, Detailed comments |
| Select | Dropdown with predefined options | Expertise level, Track recommendation |
| Checkbox | One or more checkboxes | Declarations, checklist items |
| Text | Single-line input | Short answers |
Required fields have no annotation. Optional fields are marked (optional) next to the label.
Confidential fields — visible to organizers only, never shared with authors — are marked with a Confidential badge next to the label.
Scale Fields
Scale fields show a row of clickable numbered buttons. Click the number that matches your rating. The maximum value is shown to the right (e.g.
/ 5). The scale range and what each number means are defined by the conference — read the help text shown under the field label before scoring.Decision (Required)
The Decision field is always required and appears at the bottom of the criteria list. It is a dropdown with four options:
| Value | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Accept | The paper is suitable for publication as-is or with minimal edits. |
| Minor Revision | The paper needs small improvements. Authors revise and resubmit. |
| Major Revision | The paper has significant issues that must be addressed. |
| Reject | The paper is not suitable for this venue. |
You cannot submit a review without selecting a Decision.
Attachment (if enabled)
Some conferences allow reviewers to upload an attachment alongside the written review — for example, annotated PDFs or supplementary notes. If your conference has this enabled, an Upload Attachment button appears above the Decision field.
- Accepted formats: PDF or DOCX
- Maximum size: 20 MB
- The attachment is uploaded immediately when you select the file. You can view or remove it before submitting.
- Once the review is submitted, the attachment is locked.
6. Revision Requested
If an organizer has sent your review back for revision, an amber banner labeled Revision Requested appears at the top of the review form with the organizer's notes. Read the notes, update your review accordingly, and resubmit.
7. Saving vs Submitting Your Review
Save Draft — Saves your current progress without finalizing the review. Your status on the assignments page changes to In Progress. You can return and edit at any time before submitting. The Save Draft button is disabled if you have not made any changes since the last save.
Submit Review — Finalizes and submits your review. Before you can submit, all required fields must be filled and a Decision must be selected.
Warning: Submitting locks your review. Read your review carefully before clicking "Submit Review". Check that all required fields are filled, your Decision is correct, and your written comments accurately reflect your assessment.
There is no automatic submission at the deadline — if you have a draft saved but do not click Submit, the organizer will see the review as incomplete.
8. Review Deadlines
The due date for each assignment is shown on the assignment card and in the deadline banner on the review page. Key points:
- You may receive a reminder email as the deadline approaches.
- The organizer may have set a custom deadline for your specific assignment that differs from the conference-wide review deadline — this is indicated as "(custom)" in the deadline display.
- Submitting a late review may still be accepted by the organizer — contact them if you need an extension.
- The organizer cannot make acceptance decisions until enough reviews are in. Late reviews delay outcomes for the authors.
If you realize you cannot complete an assigned review (due to illness, unexpected travel, or a COI discovered after assignment), contact the organizer as early as possible so they can reassign the paper.
9. Review Guidelines
Always check whether the conference has published specific review guidelines — these are typically linked on the review page or included in the invitation email. In the absence of conference-specific guidance, the following general principles apply:
Evaluate the paper as submitted. Do not penalize authors for what they could have added. If a limitation is minor and acknowledged by the authors, weigh it accordingly.
Be constructive. Even for papers you recommend rejecting, provide actionable feedback. Authors invest significant time in their work. A rejection with specific, useful critique is more valuable than an acceptance with vague praise.
Be fair. Author seniority, institutional affiliation, or prior reputation should not influence your assessment — especially in a double-blind setting where this information is not available. Evaluate the contribution on its merits.
Be specific. Avoid generalities. "The methodology is weak" tells the author nothing. "The evaluation in Section 4 does not account for [specific confounding factor], which would affect the validity of the results in Table 2" is actionable.
Declare new COIs immediately. If you recognize the authors from writing style, citations, or system name, contact the organizer before submitting your review.
10. Viewing Your Review History
After the conference concludes, your submitted reviews remain accessible via your personal dashboard under
/dashboard/reviews/. This is useful for:- Referencing your past assessments
- Tracking your reviewing activity across conferences
Review history is private — only you can see your individual review submissions.