ACM FAccT Conference

Sample Reviewer Form for 2025

Field Format Description Provided
Summary of Contribution Free text Summarize the main ideas of the submission and explain any contributions to the literature, especially in relation to previous work at FAccT or other related archival conferences or journals.

This summary provides useful context to the Area Chair and Program Chairs.
Quality Free text Please address the degree to which:
  • The work presented is comprehensive.
  • The claims are well and clearly supported by theoretical analysis, evidence, argument, and/or experimental results.
  • The authors are careful and transparent about evaluating both the strengths and limitations of their work.
  • The research holistically considers the sociotechnical nature of the studied systems.
  • The work adequately cites related literature, and is appropriately situated in the context of that literature.
Clarity Free text Please address the degree to which:
  • The submission is clearly written, well organized, and self-contained.
  • The submission adequately informs the reader about both the research results and how the research was conducted.
  • The claims/arguments are explored in sufficient depth.
  • Any experimental methodology is well motivated and clearly documented.
  • Mathematical notation and definitions are clear and precise, and derivations and proofs are complete.
Originality Free text Please address the degree to which:
  • The submission makes it clear how this work differs from and builds on previous work.
  • The submission contributes new analyses, results, tasks, theories, methods, data, and/or perspectives.
  • Alternatively, the work combines well-known research in new ways, or introduces theories, methods, or perspectives from one discipline to another in a way that prior work has not considered.

Note that different papers make different types of contributions. A submission does not need to be novel along every dimension as long as the primary contribution is original.

Significance and Impact Free text Please address the degree to which:
  • The research is well motivated and addresses an important problem or gap in our understanding.
  • The research and results have significance and provide insights relevant to practitioners, policy makers, and/or academia.
Relevance Multiple choice Please select the option that best captures the relevance of the work to FAccT.

In formulating this judgment, you may find it helpful to review the topics of interest found in the CFP, noting that this list was not meant to be exhaustive. We welcome submissions that address other important problems surrounding the fairness, accountability, and transparency of sociotechnical systems.

This submission has relevance to FAccT:
  1. Strongly disagree that this submission is relevant to FAccT
  2. Disagree that this submission is relevant to FAccT
  3. Neutral about the relevance of this submission to FAccT
  4. Agree that this submission is relevant to FAccT
  5. Strongly agree that this submission is relevant to FAccT
Optional Additional Comments on Relevance Free text You may elaborate on your relevance rating here.
Overall Merit Multiple choice Papers submitted to FAccT are expected to be of publication-ready quality, and your overall assessment should reflect on whether you believe the paper merits acceptance except for minor revisions. If you believe a paper requires significant revision, or that you would need to review the outcome of the revision to feel comfortable accepting the paper, you should generally suggest rejection.

Please keep in mind that FAccT papers often differ in style and focus, and multiple types of contributions are valid.

You should NOT assume that you were assigned a representative sample of submissions, nor should you adjust your scores to match the overall conference acceptance rates. The “Overall Merit” score for each submission should reflect your assessment of the submission’s contributions.

Please select the option that best reflects your overall assessment of the paper.
  1. A 'must reject.' Paper is fundamentally flawed (e.g., major results are trivial, wrong, or already known). I strongly believe this submission should be rejected.
  2. A strong reject. I suggest rejecting this submission.
  3. A marginal reject. I lean towards rejecting this submission, but accepting it would not be a serious issue.
  4. Borderline. I neither lean towards accepting nor rejecting this submission.
  5. A marginal accept. I lean towards accepting this submission, but rejecting it would not be a serious issue.
  6. A strong accept. The submission would be accepted at a respected venue in my field. I recommend accepting it.
  7. A ‘must accept’. This would be a top publication at highly respected venues. I strongly recommend accepting it.
Confidence score
(Hidden from authors)		 Multiple choice Choices are:
  1. Your assessment is an educated guess. The submission is not in your area or the submission was difficult to understand. Math/other details were not carefully checked.
  2. You are willing to defend your assessment, but it is quite likely that you did not understand central parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.
  3. You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.
  4. You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.
  5. You are very confident about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work.

Note: If you feel that your confidence rating is likely to be a 1 at the end of a review due to your lack of expertise in the given subject area, you should notify the AC or PCs as early as possible in the process. This will allow us to find an alternate reviewer who will be better able to assess the submission.

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.

Comments on Ethical Issues
(Hidden from authors)		 Free text You may elaborate on any potential ethical issues here. If the authors attempted to address or mitigate the issues, please describe how they did so.
Please confirm that you have carefully read the reviewing guidelines
(Hidden from authors)		 Yes/No You can find the reviewing guidelines at Reviewer Guidelines
Please confirm that you have read the authors' responses to the reviews, and that you have updated your review as appropriate.
(Only after rebuttal)		 Yes/No Please check this box only after carefully reading the full set of reviews and authors’ rebuttal (if provided) and updating your review as appropriate.
Post-rebuttal Comments
(Only after rebuttal)		 Free text Please use this box to explain to the authors and AC how the rebuttal influenced your decisions, if at all. You can and should additionally edit other parts of your review, including scores. Summarize those edits here.

Note that the authors’ rebuttal is meant to clarify misunderstandings or errors in the review, not debate substantive disagreements or introduce new data.
Confidential Comments to the AC Free Text Message that should only be seen by ACs. Only to be used in rare cases where it is not possible to share information with other reviewers (such as concerns, violations, or subtle decision-making considerations).