Guidelines for Reviewers
and Program Committee Members

  1. Introduction

The goal of the ACIIDS 2026 review process is to identify submissions that advance the state of research in intelligent information systems, and to provide authors with meaningful, constructive feedback. Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific quality of the conference.

These guidelines outline the responsibilities of reviewers, ethical expectations, and the process for completing the ACIIDS review form.

  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Read the assigned submissions thoroughly and provide high-quality, well-reasoned evaluations.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submitted material.
  • Report serious issues (e.g., plagiarism, previously published work, ethical concerns).
  • Provide fair, unbiased, and respectful assessments.
  • Recommend outstanding papers for awards or special recognition when appropriate.

  1. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

3.1 Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts, supplementary materials, and reviews are confidential. They may not be shared, stored externally, or used for any purpose beyond reviewing. Any submitted code must be deleted after the review cycle.

3.2 Use of Generative AI

Reviewers must not use large language models or generative AI tools to analyze submissions, write substantial part of reviews, summarize papers, or handle submission text in any form. It is permitted to use general writing aides for your own review text, such as translation, linguistic polishing.

3.3 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest according to the conference policy (co-authorship, institutional ties, personal relationships, ongoing collaborations, etc.).

  1. Best Practices for Writing a Review

A good review should be:

  • Thoughtful – consider the work from the author’s perspective.
  • Specific – avoid vague statements; always point to precise issues.
  • Balanced – highlight both strengths and weaknesses.
  • Constructive – indicate how the work can be improved.
  • Open-minded – especially toward unconventional or interdisciplinary ideas.
  • Professional – avoid personal remarks, sarcasm, or hostile language.

  1. How to Complete the ACIIDS 2026 Review Form

Below is guidance for each field in your review form,  based on your own scoring categories and text areas.

5.1 Suitability for the Conference Areas of Interest

Explain whether the submission fits the themes and research areas of ACIIDS.
Typical considerations:

  • Does the topic fall within intelligent information systems?
  • Will the ACIIDS audience find this work relevant?

Provide a brief justification.

5.2 Significance and Quality of Content

Evaluate the contribution:

  • Does it provide new insights, methods, or applications?
  • Are the results meaningful and well supported?
  • Does the work make a substantial contribution to the field?

Indicate strengths and limitations.

5.3 Technical Quality of Presentation

Assess the clarity and structure:

  • Is the manuscript logically organized?
  • Are definitions, assumptions, and explanations clear?
  • Are the figures and tables of high quality?

Note any problematic ambiguities or missing details.

5.4 Analytical Quality of Presentation

Focus on the rigor of analysis:

  • Are experiments sound and well-controlled?
  • Are comparisons fair and complete?
  • Is the methodology described in enough detail to be understood?

Highlight issues such as missing baselines or weak statistical support.

5.5 Overall Evaluation

Provide a concise synthesis of your assessment of the paper, integrating the detailed comments from 5.1–5.4. Your overall evaluation should briefly summarise:

  • Key strengths — the most important positive aspects of the paper, such as novelty, methodological rigor, quality of experiments, clarity of exposition, or relevance to the ACIIDS community.
  • Key weaknesses — the main limitations or concerns, including methodological flaws, insufficient evaluation, unclear writing, missing comparisons, or lack of significance.
  • Overall contribution — a short statement on what the paper contributes to the field and whether the contribution is substantial, incremental, or unclear.
  • Comparison to typical ACIIDS submissions — indicate whether the paper stands out above average, is roughly in line with the conference standard, or falls below expectations.
  • Your recommendation — choose strong accept, weak accept, weak reject, or strong reject and provide a brief justification based on the evidence.
  • Use “borderline” only as a last resort, if you genuinely cannot justify a clear accept or reject after considering all evidence and arguments laid out in Sections 5.1–5.4.

5.6 Confidential Remarks for the Program Committee

Remarks visible only to organizers.
Use this space for:

  • procedural concerns,
  • doubts about ethical compliance,
  • borderline accept/reject reasoning,
  • concerns unsuitable for authors.

5.7 Alleged Plagiarism

If you suspect plagiarism or duplicate submission:

  • provide specific parts of the manuscript,
  • cite sources or links for comparison,
  • describe the degree of overlap.

Do not make accusations in the review.

5.8 Suspected AI Generation

If you suspect that AI tools generated substantial parts of the manuscript:

  • describe textual patterns, style irregularities, or inconsistencies,
  • explain the extent to which this influences scientific quality,
  • provide clear, factual observations.

Avoid subjective judgments like “this feels AI-written”.

5.9 Recommendation for Best Paper Award

Select this only for exceptional work that stands out in terms of originality, rigor, clarity, and potential impact.