AIMC Reviewing Guidelines

Thank you for becoming a peer reviewer for the AIMC 2023 conference.

As part of our commitment to open science and transparency, the AIMC 2023 peer review process will be conducted using OpenReview, which makes both the reviews and authors' responses publicly available after final publication (see below for more info about OpenReview). Your review should be seen as a valuable contribution to the field and a discussion that furthers ideas on the topic. To ensure clarity and readability, please follow these guidelines when reviewing a manuscript:

1. Understand the conference's scope: Read the call for papers, author guidelines, and any other relevant information to ensure that the manuscript you're reviewing fits within the conference's scope, theme and contributes to the field.

2. Evaluate the manuscript: Carefully assess the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses, considering its novelty, technical soundness, clarity, and potential impact on the field. Look for any errors, inconsistencies, or gaps in the research.

3. Provide constructive feedback: Write a review that outlines the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses, offering specific suggestions for improvement, such as additional experiments, clarifications, or revisions to the methodology or analysis. Be respectful and courteous in your comments, even if you disagree with the authors' conclusions or methods. Address the following categories:

   1. Project idea and key contribution

   2. Research questions and context

   3. Methodologies

   4. Project outputs and interpretation of results

   5. General writing style, media elements, and references

4. Maintain confidentiality: Keep the manuscript and its contents confidential, and avoid discussing it with others outside of the review process. Be aware of personal biases and conflicts of interest that could influence your review. If you have a potential conflict of interest, disclose it to the program chairs or editors.

5. Adhere to deadlines: Submit your review within the given timeframe, and notify the program chairs or editors if you're unable to meet the deadline. Timely reviews are crucial for maintaining the quality and integrity of the peer review process.

6. Important dates: The deadline for peer reviews is May 10th (AoE) on OpenReview. Following the Reviews deadline, there will be a two-week Discussion Period during which authors can respond to peer reviews and clarify issues using the OpenReview platform.

We appreciate your commitment to providing thoughtful and constructive reviews that contribute to the advancement of the field.

If you have any questions, please do reach out to us.

OpenReview Discussion Period: A Guide for Authors and Reviewers

The OpenReview Discussion Period is an essential part of the review process, designed to promote transparency, collaboration, and constructive feedback between authors and reviewers. If you are unfamiliar with how the OpenReview Discussion Period works, this guide will provide you with an overview of the process and your role as a reviewer. You can also browse OpenReview discussions online to get a feel for how they work and what value they provide.

Purpose of the Discussion Period

The primary goal of the Discussion Period is to facilitate communication between authors and reviewers, allowing for clarifications, addressing concerns, and discussing potential improvements to the submitted work. This interactive and public process promotes a more thorough understanding of the research and fosters a collaborative atmosphere in the academic community.

How it Works

1. Review Submission: As a reviewer, you will submit your review by the given deadline, following the guidelines provided by the conference organisers.

2. Discussion Period Begins: After the Review deadline, the Discussion Period commences lasting for two weeks. During this time, authors can view the reviews and respond to the feedback provided by the reviewers.

3. Author Responses: Authors are encouraged to address the reviewers' comments, provide clarifications, and discuss any changes they plan to make in response to the feedback. They may also ask questions or seek further clarification from the reviewers.

4. Reviewer Participation: As a reviewer, you are expected to engage in the discussion by responding to the authors' comments and addressing any questions or concerns they may have. This is your opportunity to provide additional feedback, clarify your initial review, or discuss any new information that the authors have provided.

5. Ongoing Dialogue: The discussion between authors and reviewers may continue throughout the Discussion Period, fostering a constructive dialogue that benefits both parties.

6. Discussion Period Ends: Once the Discussion Period concludes, the authors will have a better understanding of the reviewers' feedback and will be able to make any necessary revisions to their work. This process ultimately contributes to a higher quality final submission.

7. Final Reviews: Reviewers will have a final chance to update their reviews based on the Discussion Period outcomes, before the conference programme is decided and author notifications are published.

Remember, the OpenReview Discussion Period is an opportunity for reviewers and authors to engage in an open and collaborative dialogue with each other. Your active participation and constructive feedback during this period are essential to ensuring a transparent and effective review process.