ACM FAccT Conference

Sample AC Review Form for 2025

Field Format Description Provided
Preliminary AC summary Free text Please submit a summary of the submission’s main content (claims, findings, arguments, etc.), its strengths and weaknesses, and the key points raised by reviewers. Highlight any points that you would especially encourage the authors to address in their rebuttal, noting that the rebuttal is meant to clarify misunderstandings or errors in the review, not debate substantive disagreements or introduce new data.

At this point, please DO NOT include any judgements about the paper’s likelihood of being accepted/rejected or make any explicit recommendations that the paper be accepted/rejected.
Final Meta-Review
(Only after rebuttal)		 Free text We recommend that meta-reviews be at least 100 words, and comprise of three sections:
  1. Submission summary. Summary of the submission’s main content (claims, findings, argument) including strengths and weaknesses. This summary should be based on the AC’s own understanding and the summaries provided by the reviewers.
  2. Discussion summary. Provide a summary of the rebuttal, subsequent reviewer discussion, and any reviewer updates. AC’s should summarize concerns from reviewers, how they were addressed by authors, and how this contributed to the decision-making process.
  3. Recommendation. ACs should provide a clear recommendation, a review outcome, and a justification. The AC recommendation and justification should be based on the content of the discussion and the informed expertise of the reviewers.
Overall Merit Multiple choice Please select the option that best reflects your overall assessment.
  • Strong reject: This paper is fundamentally flawed (e.g., major results are trivial, wrong, already known). I strongly believe this submission should be rejected.
  • Weak reject: I lean towards rejecting this submission, but accepting it would not be a major issue.
  • Weak accept: I lean towards accepting this submission, but rejecting it would not be a major issue.
  • Strong accept: This is an excellent submission and I strongly believe it should be accepted.
Please select if you wish to further discuss this paper with the Program Chairs (PCs) Yes/No Please select this option if you would like to discuss this paper with the PCs during the final selection process, for instance because there was high disagreement among reviewers or you are unsure about the relevance of the paper for FAccT.
Confidence score
(Hidden from authors)		 Multiple choice Choices are:
  1. Limited Confidence: Your assessment is an informed opinion, but the submission is outside your core expertise. You found it difficult to evaluate the submission, the reviews, or the discrepancies between reviews.
  2. Low Confidence: You can defend your assessment, but struggle with some key points in the submission and the reviews or you are unfamiliar with related work. Reconciling disagreements between reviews was challenging.
  3. Moderate Confidence: You are mostly confident in your assessment. You understand most of the submission and can evaluate the quality of the reviews, though there are some areas where you feel less certain in reconciling reviewer disagreements or assessing specific technical details.
  4. High Confidence: You are confident in your assessment. You have a strong understanding of the submission and the reviews, and you are able to address reviewer disagreements, though there are minor aspects where you feel less certain.
  5. Full Confidence: You are very familiar with the related work, can independently assess the quality of the reviews, and effectively reconcile any reviewer disagreements. Your meta-review reflects a well-considered and comprehensive judgment.

Note: If you feel that your confidence rating is likely to be a 1 at the end of a review process, you should notify the PCs as early as possible in the process.

Nominate for Best Paper
(Hidden from authors)		 Yes/No Check this box if you would like to nominate this paper to be considered for a best paper award.
Ethical Issues
(Hidden from authors)		 Yes/No If there are potential ethical questions or concerns with this paper that will require consideration by the Program Chairs, please flag and discuss in the comments.

Ethical issues might include, for instance:
  • Improper treatment of human subjects or data annotators, including those to do with fair pay
  • Use of unethically collected datasets, datasets that have been retracted, or datasets not allowed to be used in the research context
  • Potential negative downstream harms that require additional scrutiny or mitigation
  • Environmental concerns
  • Rights concerns
  • Privacy concerns
  • Safety or security concerns
  • Legal concerns, including around copyright
  • Dangerous materials and practices
  • Warfare
  • Discrimination, bias, and fairness issues
  • Deception or harassment

If you have evidence of plagiarism or other severe research integrity issues, please email the Program Chairs directly as soon as possible.

Please confirm that you have carefully read the AC guidelines
(Hidden from authors)		 Yes/No You can find the AC guidelines at AC Guidelines.
Nominate reviewers for exceptional service recognition.
(Hidden from reviewers and authors)		 Significant contributions are made by Reviewers who provide detailed reviews that strengthen the work under review, are on time and proactive in reviews, incorporate Reviewer discussion and author responses in their assessments, are measured in their judgments, and support the overall decision-making process. We expect approximately 15% of Reviewers to be recognized.
Confidential Comments to the PC Free Text Use this field for messages that should only be seen by PCs. Only to be used in rare cases where it is not possible to share information with authors (such as concerns, violations, or subtle decision-making considerations). For serious concerns that require prompt attention from the PCs, email program-chairs@facctconference.org.