GenLaw ’23: Reviewer guidelines
Papers will be reviewed by a panel of 3 interdisciplinary reviewers.
Reviews will consist of:
- 1-2 sentence summary of the paper (this is not a critical review)
- A multiple choice question concerning alignment of the submission with the CFP
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- A recommendation (accept, unsure, reject). This recommendation should be grounded in the critical review.
- 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.
- We will have some recognition (more specific than “best”) for high-quality submissions.
- A confidence score regarding the recommendation.
- A checkbox to recommend particularly outstanding papers for a spotlight talk during the workshop.
- 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.
- An additional box for confidential comments to the organizers.