--- name: ijcai-review-process description: Use when explaining or planning around IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI two-phase review, summary rejection, PC/SPC/AC/SAC roles, author response visibility, reviewer confidentiality, conflict-of-interest policy, ethics checks, and decision dynamics. --- # IJCAI Review Process Use this to reason about review-stage strategy. Reopen the current CFP, FAQ, peer-review principles, and conflict policy before making process claims. ## Process model - Phase 1 can be decisive. IJCAI-ECAI 2026 gave every paper two PC reviews first; papers with two good-quality but insufficiently positive reviews could receive summary rejection without author response. - Papers advancing to full review receive additional review and discussion by PC/SPC members, with AC coordination and SAC cross-checking. - The response is concise and visible to the decision group specified by current rules; it is not a dialogue with reviewers. - Ethics concerns can be flagged by reviewers and escalated to the Ethics Chair. - Conflicts include recent coauthors, advisor/student relationships, same institution, current grants/projects, sponsorship, personal relationships, or animosity under the IJCAI COI policy. - Authors must not try to identify or contact reviewers, and reviewers must preserve submission confidentiality. ## Decision actors and where leverage lives | Stage | Who decides | Author leverage | Forbidden | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Phase 1 summary reject | Two PC reviewers, AC | None: there is usually no response here | Treating phase 1 as if a rebuttal will save it | | Full review | PC, SPC, AC discussion | Concise response on pressing questions and factual errors | New experiments, code links, or scope changes | | Decision | AC recommends, SAC cross-checks, chairs finalize | Clarity already in the paper, ethics flags resolved | Contacting or guessing reviewer identity | | Ethics escalation | Ethics Chair | Confidential channel for unethical-review concerns | Using ethics box to argue scores | Because IJCAI spans many AI subcommunities, a paper can draw one in-area and one out-of-area reviewer; the out-of-area reviewer is often where summary-reject risk concentrates, so the phase-1 readability of the contribution matters more than at single-topic venues. ## Worked vignette: surviving phase 1 A constraint-reasoning paper gets two competent reviews that are lukewarm because the second reviewer, from a learning background, could not locate the contribution by page two. Under IJCAI rules this profile is a summary-reject candidate before any response. The leverage is not in the rebuttal: it is in writing so a non-specialist PC member sees the novel claim on page one. Diagnose this risk pre-submission, since phase 1 may give no chance to reply. ## Reviewer pushback and the venue-specific fix - "Reviewer misread the method." If it is decision-critical, correct it precisely in the response with a pointer to the submitted section; do not relitigate the score. - "Two okay-but-tepid reviews." Recognize this as the classic IJCAI summary-reject pattern and fix readability upstream; you cannot count on a response stage. - "Suspected reviewer is a competitor." Do not investigate; raise a conflict or ethics concern through the official channel only. ## Output format ```text [Current stage] submitted / phase 1 / full review / response / decision [Decision actors] [Likely leverage] [Forbidden moves] ```