Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play an important role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the conference review process.

As a reviewer, you are expected to:

• Evaluate submissions fairly and objectively.
• Maintain confidentiality.
• Avoid conflicts of interest.
• Submit reviews before deadlines.
• Provide constructive feedback to authors.

Reviewer recommendations assist organizers in making informed decisions but do not constitute final acceptance or rejection decisions.

Step 1: Create an Account

Before reviewing papers, you must register an account on the platform.

After registration, you may be invited by a conference organizer to serve as a reviewer.

Step 2: Receive Review Assignments

When a paper is assigned to you:

• A notification may appear in your Reviewer Dashboard.
• You may receive an email notification.
• The assigned paper will appear in your review task list.

Only papers assigned to you can be accessed and reviewed.

Step 3: Access Assigned Papers

To review a paper:

• Sign in to your account.
• Open the Reviewer Dashboard.
• Select the assigned paper.
• Download and review the manuscript.

Depending on conference settings, manuscripts may be anonymous as part of a Double-Blind Review process.

Step 4: Evaluate the Submission

Review the paper carefully and consider:

• Originality
• Technical quality
• Methodology
• Clarity of presentation
• Relevance to the conference
• Significance of the contribution

Review criteria may vary between conferences.

Step 5: Submit Your Review

After evaluating the paper, submit your review through the platform.

You may be asked to provide:

• Review comments
• Comments for authors
• Comments for organizers (optional)
• Numerical scores
• Overall recommendation

Typical recommendations include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Understanding Review Recommendations

Accept

The paper is suitable for acceptance with little or no modification required.

Minor Revision

The paper requires small corrections or clarifications.

Examples:

• Grammar improvements
• Formatting corrections
• Minor content clarification

Major Revision

The paper requires significant improvements before it can be considered for acceptance.

Examples:

• Additional analysis
• Methodological improvements
• Major restructuring
• Expanded discussion

Reject

The paper is not suitable for acceptance in its current form.

Reasons may include:

• Lack of originality
• Significant technical issues
• Poor quality
• Out-of-scope content

Step 6: Update a Submitted Review

Depending on conference settings, organizers may allow reviewers to modify previously submitted reviews.

To update a review:

• Open the assigned paper.
• Select Edit Review.
• Update comments, scores, or recommendations.
• Save your changes.

All review updates may be recorded for auditing purposes.

Step 7: Review Revised Papers

If an author submits a revised manuscript after a Minor Revision or Major Revision decision:

• The revised file may be reassigned to the original reviewer.
• Previous review comments remain available for reference.
• You may update your recommendation based on the revised submission.

This helps ensure that reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed.

Suggested Re-review Workflow

When reviewing a revised paper:

• Review your original comments.
• Compare the revised manuscript with previous concerns.
• Verify whether requested changes have been addressed.
• Update your recommendation.

Possible updated recommendations:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Double-Blind Review

For conferences using Double-Blind Review:

Reviewers should not attempt to identify authors.

Reviewers must not:

• Search for author identities.
• Contact authors directly.
• Disclose manuscript contents to others.

All submission materials should be treated as confidential.

Conflicts of Interest

If you have a conflict of interest with a submission, you should immediately notify the conference organizer.

Examples include:

• Current collaboration with an author
• Personal relationships
• Financial interests
• Institutional conflicts

The organizer may reassign the paper to another reviewer.

Review Deadlines

Please complete reviews before the assigned deadline.

Late reviews may delay:

• Editorial decisions
• Author notifications
• Conference schedules

Organizers may reassign overdue reviews if necessary.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must keep all submission materials confidential.

You may not:

• Share manuscripts
• Distribute files
• Reuse unpublished ideas
• Discuss papers outside the review process

Confidentiality obligations continue even after the review process has ended.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I review papers that were not assigned to me?

No. You may only access papers explicitly assigned to your account.

Can I change my recommendation later?

If permitted by the organizer, you may update your review before the review process closes.

Can I see other reviewers' comments?

This depends on conference settings and organizer policies.

What happens after I submit my review?

The organizer will evaluate all reviewer feedback before making a final decision.

Will authors know my identity?

This depends on the review model configured by the conference.

Many conferences use Single-Blind or Double-Blind Review processes.

Need Assistance?

If you encounter technical issues or have questions regarding your review assignments, please contact the conference organizer or visit the FAQ section for additional assistance.