GenLaw ’23: Reviewer guidelines

Call for Papers

Papers will be reviewed by a panel of 3 interdisciplinary reviewers.

Reviews will consist of:

1. 1-2 sentence summary of the paper (this is not a critical review)
2. A multiple choice question concerning alignment of the submission with the CFP
3. 2-3 sentence critical review that addresses overall clarity, soundness/rigor, originality/novelty, and adequate treatment of related work. We provide more details on these considerations below:
   1. An abstract that submits a novel “big idea” nevertheless needs to have a sufficient level of detail to be able to evaluate its feasibility and relationship to prior work. The abstract should be well motivated with connections to prior work.
   2. We will also accept abstracts that build on prior work in smaller ways, as long as they are well-written and sound. Bringing significant clarity to existing discussions can also be a useful contribution in its own right.
   3. We deliberately limited the number of pages of references to emphasize quality of engagement with existing work, rather than quantity, especially given that these are short papers.
4. A recommendation (accept, unsure, reject). This recommendation should be grounded in the critical review.
5. If the recommendation is “accept”: 1 sentence on your favorite strength(s) about the submission. We will use this to highlight high-quality submissions on the website. Feel free to directly copy or repurpose language from the critical review.
   1. We will have some recognition (more specific than “best”) for high-quality submissions.
6. A confidence score regarding the recommendation.
7. A checkbox to recommend particularly outstanding papers for a spotlight talk during the workshop.
8. A checkbox to indicate red flags/ ethical concerns (with an open text box).

Lastly, the following field will not be visible to other reviewers or to authors.

9. An additional box for confidential comments to the organizers.