Double blind reviewing
This year, we will use double blind reviewing. The authors do not know the identity of the reviewers; this also holds for authors who are on the program committee. In addition, the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
You should not actively attempt to discover the identities of the authors. Based on the experience of other double-blind conferences, we caution reviewers that the assumed authors may not be the actual authors; multiple independent invention is common and different groups build on each other’s work.
If you believe that you have discovered the identity of the author, please let us know in the “Confidential remarks for the program committee” in your review (see below).
Review Criteria & Numeric Scoring Guide
Your review should be constructive, thorough, and polite. Please take the time to fully assess the papers assigned to you.
We use six criteria to judge a paper: Relevance, Significance, Novelty, Clarity, Soundness and Evaluation. You should also provide detailed comments justifying your evaluation along with suggestions for improving the paper. Furthermore, please provide specific information on which issues you would like the authors to address in their author response.
Please find below some guidance on the meaning of the criteria and their numerical scores.
|Summary. In your own words, please summarize the main claims/contributions of the paper, relating the ideas to previous published work.
|Relevance.* What is the relevance of this paper to the conference?
4: Likely to be of interest to a large proportion of researchers
3: Relevant to researchers in subarea only
2: Of limited interest to the conference
1: Not relevant
|Significance.* Are the results significant?
4: Highly significant
2: Moderately significant
1: Not significant
|Novelty.* Are the problems or approaches novel?
4: Very novel
2: Moderately novel
1: Not novel
|Clarity.* Is the paper clearly written? Is it well-organized? Does it adequately inform the reader?
|Soundness.* Is the paper technically sound?
3: Technically sound
2: Has minor errors
1: Has major errors
|Evaluation.* Are claims well-supported by theoretical analysis or experimental results?
4: Very convincing
2: Somewhat weak
1: Not convincing
|Overall evaluation.* Please provide an overall score for the submission.
3: Strong accept
1: Weak accept
0: Borderline paper
-1: Weak reject
-3: Strong reject
|Detailed comments.* Please elaborate on your assessments and provide constructive feedback.
|Questions for authors.* Please provide questions for authors to address during the author feedback period.
|Reviewer’s confidence.* Please enter your confidence about your review.
|Confidential remarks for the program committee. If you wish to add any remarks intended only for PC members please write them below.