Reviewer and Area Chair Guidelines

The Golden Rule

Write a review that you would like to receive yourself. A review should be helpful to the authors, even if it recommends rejection. Deliver work you would be proud to associate with your name.

Topical Scope

• Multimedia Focus: Problems should ideally involve multi-modal data or relate to how people interpret and use multimedia.
• Scope Warning: Papers focusing on a narrow single modality without contributing to the human use of multimedia may be rejected as out of scope.
• Value of Insights: Do not devalue papers that study new problems but lack a novel algorithm. Judge them on the novelty and value of their insights.

Review Quality & Content

Supporting Statements

• Avoid vague phrases like "It is well known that..." or "Important references are missing."
• Provide solid argumentation and cite specific, peer-reviewed references that the authors should consider.
• Only list your own references in rare cases where they are the most relevant.

Required Elements

• Novelty: State what the paper contributes and its value to the community.
• Scientific Rigor: Evaluate experiment design, reproducibility, and whether claims are supported. Note if resources (code/data) were released.
• Fixes: Distinguish between minor errors for the camera-ready version and major flaws that must lead to rejection.

Tone and Respect

Critique "the paper," not the authors. Avoid addressing authors directly (e.g., using "you") to prevent the review from being interpreted as an affront.

Double-Blind Policy

• Reviewers and ACs cannot see author identities.
• Authors are responsible for anonymizing submissions (no names, affiliations, or identifiers).
• If a paper is not adequately anonymized, contact your Area Chair.
• Strict Prohibition: Do not attempt to find author identities via search engines, arXiv, or AI agents. If identities are discovered accidentally, do not divulge them.

Discussion & Rebuttals

• No New Experiments: Do not ask for new results in the rebuttal. Final recommendations must be based on the original paper.
• Engagement: Read rebuttals carefully and update your review or respond to AC requests accordingly.
• Proactive Participation: Engage in internal TPC discussions, especially when reviews are divergent.

Policy on arXiv and Prior Work

• Definition: A "publication" is peer-reviewed and accepted work (including workshop papers).
• Non-Publications: Departmental reports and arXiv papers are not considered formal publications, though citing them is discouraged as they are subject to change.
• Overlap: Submissions must not have substantial overlap with prior publications or work currently under review elsewhere.

Contact

For questions regarding these guidelines, please contact the Technical Program Chairs at: tpc@acmmm2026org