ICMR 2026 Reviewer Guideline

Guidelines for reviewing submissions to ICMR 2026

  • Please write your review in five parts as follows
    • Paper Summary: Describe your overall understanding of this submission.
    • Paper Strengths: Strengths that you would vote for acceptance.
    • Major Weaknesses: Weaknesses that you would vote for rejection.
    • Minor Weaknesses: Can be fixed by minor revisions.
    • Justification of Your Recommendation: Explain how you weigh between paper strengths and major weaknesses that leads to your final recommendation.
  • Please review all submissions assigned to you to the best of your ability. If you feel a submission falls outside your area of expertise, you may lower your confidence score and make a weak recommendation.
  • If you challenge the novelty of a submission, please provide specific references and explain in a precise context why the work is not novel. Please do NOT cite arxiv papers as they have not been peer-reviewed and do not count as official publications.
  • Do NOT use the review as an opportunity to suggest your own papers as the relevant literature. If you truly feel your paper(s) should be cited, you may put them in the reviews for authors' information, and meanwhile please disclose them to SPC via the confidential comment.
  • Do NOT penalize a submission for format issues. TPC chairs have already done the format check. However, a few papers may have been overlooked. If you believe that a submission does not comply with the guidelines (e.g., breach of anonymity, not use of the ACM two-column template, or exceeding length limits) and you are really concerned, please leave a confidential comment for the Chairs.
  • Do NOT penalize a submission for not providing source code. The conference does not give authors options to submit their code or supplementary materials.
  • Do NOT reject a paper solely because it does not outperform the state-of-the-art. Likewise, do NOT accept a paper solely because it outperforms the state-of-the-art. Please check if the idea is interesting and the study is insightful to the community.
  • Do NOT penalize a submission because its idea or proposed method appears to be simple or straightforward.
  • Do NOT penalize a submission for its irrelevance to ICMR, unless the paper is clearly out of scope. Your review should focus on the technical quality and contribution of the work. Please note that the review form already includes a specific question (“Topic Relevance”) on the paper’s relevance to ICMR, where you can explicitly evaluate this aspect. If topic relevance is a major factor that influences your recommendation, please make it clear in the review. SPC will take this into account when writing meta reviews.
  • Do NOT use generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT or similar systems) to generate the content of your review. While such tools may be used to improve grammar or formatting, the evaluation, analysis, and final recommendation must reflect your own independent expert judgment. Reviews must be authentic and written by the assigned reviewer.
  • Please keep anonymity in the review.