Managing the Review Process

This guide covers the full review lifecycle from an organizer's perspective — configuring the review form, assigning reviewers, tracking progress, and making final decisions.

Review Settings

Go to Manage → Settings → Review to configure how reviews work for your conference.

Blind Type

Option	Behavior
Double-blind (default)	Reviewers cannot see author names or affiliations. Authors cannot see reviewer identities.
Single-blind	Reviewers can see author information. Authors still cannot see reviewer identities.

Blind type affects what data is exposed on the reviewer's review page. It does not affect what organizers see — organizers always have full visibility.

Reviews Per Paper

Set the minimum number of reviews required per submission (1–10, default 3). This number is used as a target throughout the assignment UI and auto-assign algorithm.

Review Deadline

Set a conference-wide deadline for reviewers to submit their reviews. Individual reviewers can be given a custom deadline that overrides this (see Per-Assignment Deadline).

Reviewer Attachment

Toggle Allow reviewer attachment to let reviewers upload a PDF or DOCX file (up to 20 MB) alongside their written review — useful for annotated manuscript markups.

Review Criteria

Define the fields that appear on the review form. Click Add Criterion to add a field, drag to reorder, and click any criterion to edit it.

Field types:

Type	Use for
Scale	Scored dimensions — choose a max value of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 10
Textarea	Free-text feedback (strengths, weaknesses, comments)
Select	Single choice from a fixed list
Checkbox	Boolean or multi-select
Text	Short single-line answer

Per-criterion options:

Required — reviewer must fill this field before submitting (not enforced on draft save)
Confidential — shown only to organizers; never revealed to authors even after review is published
Help text — brief guidance displayed below the field label

Use the Preview Form button to see exactly how the form will appear to reviewers before saving.

Three built-in templates are available: Standard Academic Review (5 criteria), Short Abstract Rating (3 criteria), and Comprehensive Peer Review (7 criteria).

Assigning Reviewers

Manual Assignment (Per Submission)

Go to Manage → Submissions and open a submission
Click Assignments in the submission detail sidebar
Click Assign Reviewer to open the assignment sheet
Search or browse the reviewer pool — each reviewer shows their expertise topics, current assignment count, and a COI or "No Match" badge
Click a reviewer's name to assign them

The assignment sheet flags two types of conflicts automatically: email match (reviewer's email matches an author's) and affiliation match (overlapping institutions). Flagged reviewers show a red COI badge — hover for the specific match. A yellow No Match badge means no topic overlap with the submission. Assignment is not blocked; you decide whether to proceed.

To unassign a reviewer, open the assignment sheet and click the remove button next to their name. This permanently deletes their review record including any saved draft — confirm before proceeding.

For how COI affiliations are set up on reviewer profiles, see Inviting & Assigning Reviewers — COI Profiles.

Bulk Assignment

From the Manage → Submissions table, select multiple submissions using the checkboxes, then choose Assign Reviewer from the bulk actions toolbar. This assigns one reviewer to all selected submissions at once.

Auto-Assign

Click Auto-Assign from the submissions manage page to open the auto-assign dialog.

Configuration options:

Option	Description
Reviewers per submission	Target number of reviewers per paper (1–10)
Max load per reviewer	Maximum assignments one reviewer can receive
Target	All submissions / Unassigned only / Under-assigned only
Strategy	Balanced (fill least-covered submissions first) or Greedy (top-to-bottom)
Require topic match	Only assign reviewers who share at least N topics with the submission
COI handling	Skip COI reviewers, or assign with a warning flag

The algorithm scores reviewer-submission pairs by topic overlap and current load. After configuration, a preview list shows which reviewer would be assigned to which submission. Uncheck any rows before applying.

Tracking Review Progress

Per-Submission View

Open any submission and go to Assignments to see the review progress for that paper.

The top of the page shows four stat cards: Assigned, Submitted, Published, In Progress.

Below that, each assigned reviewer appears as a card showing:

Reviewer name, affiliation, and email
Review status badge (Pending / Drafting / Submitted / Published)
Their decision (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject) — shown once submitted
COI or No Match warning
Due date — highlighted red if overdue

When two or more reviews are submitted, a Review Insights panel appears showing the consensus score (normalized to a percentage) and the distribution of reviewer decisions.

Reviewer Table

Go to Manage → Reviewers to see all reviewers with their assignment counts. Use this to spot reviewers with too many or too few assignments before running auto-assign. You can edit a reviewer's expertise topics and COI affiliations from here.

Submissions Table

The Under Review tab on the submissions list shows a reviewer column and review coverage indicator for each submission. Use the review status filter to find submissions that are overdue or have no assignments.

Per-Assignment Deadline

To give a specific reviewer more (or less) time than the conference-wide deadline:

Open the submission's Assignments page
Click the due date next to the reviewer's card
Set a custom date and save

The reviewer will see "(custom)" next to their deadline. The conference-wide deadline is not affected.

Sending a Review Back for Revision

If a submitted review needs correction:

Open the assignment card for that reviewer
Click Send Back for Revision
Optionally add a note explaining what needs to change
Confirm

The reviewer's status reverts to In Progress. An amber banner with your notes appears at the top of their review form when they reopen it. They can edit and resubmit normally.

Publishing Reviews to Authors

Reviews are not visible to authors by default. To share a review:

Open the submission's Assignments page
Click Publish on the review card you want to share

The review status changes to Published and the author can now see the review content on their submission detail page. Confidential fields are never shown to authors regardless of publish status.

To unpublish, click Unpublish on the same card.

Multiple Review Rounds

If a submission requires a fresh round of reviews (e.g. after a major revision), start a new round:

Open the submission's Assignments page
Click Start Next Round

This increments the round counter. Previous rounds' reviews are preserved and shown collapsed below the current round. Assign reviewers again for the new round — the same reviewer can be assigned in a new round even if they reviewed in a prior one.

Making Decisions

The Decision Panel appears on the submission's Assignments page once the submission is in a reviewable state. Four options are available:

Decision	Resulting status
Accept	Accepted
Request Revision	Paper Revision Required — authors are notified and can resubmit
Reject	Rejected

For abstract-stage submissions (if your conference uses a two-stage abstract → full paper flow):

Decision	Resulting status
Accept Abstract	Abstract Accepted — authors proceed to full paper submission
Request Revision	Abstract Revision Required
Reject Abstract	Abstract Rejected

All decisions trigger an email notification to the submitting author.

Revoking a Decision

Every decision can be undone. Open the submission and click Revoke Decision (or the equivalent back-action) to return the submission to its previous status (e.g. Accepted → Under Review). Use this if a decision was made in error before notifications have been acted upon.

Bulk Decisions

From the submissions table, select multiple submissions and use the Change Status bulk action to apply a decision to all selected submissions at once. Each submission's transition is validated individually — invalid transitions (e.g. moving a draft submission to Accepted) are skipped automatically.