Skip to content

Senior Area Chair Guidelines

Outdated Documentation

This is a prior year version of the policies and processes at CCN. Please refer to the current year's documentation for the latest information, as policies and processes may change from year to year.

Thank you for serving as a Senior Area Chair (SAC) for the first ever CCN Proceedings track! In order to create a review process that yields the highest quality, as a grass-roots organization, we have adopted a system that is more common at machine learning conferences.

As this is the first CCN proceedings track, the timeline and guidelines may evolve. We appreciate your understanding and patience as we develop this new process for CCN.

This is a living document and we will update it when necessary.

Role overview

As a Senior Area Chair (SAC), you will oversee several Area Chairs (ACs) and ensure the review process is fair, thorough, and timely. SACs serve as the first point of contact for ACs needing assistance or guidance, help calibrate decisions across different ACs, and liaise with the Program Chairs (PCs) for final decisions.

Other guidelines

For reviewers and (senior) area chairs:\ Reviewer guidelines\ Area chair (AC) guidelines\ Senior area chair (SAC) guidelines (This document!)

For authors:\ Submission guidelines\ Author response guidelines

Overview

Reviews Due: reviews-due, 11:59 PM (Anywhere on Earth; AoE)\ Author Responses Due: author-response-due, 11:59 PM (Anywhere on Earth; AoE)\ Author - Reviewer Discussion: discussion-period (rebuttal period starts at the 3rd of april).\ Meta Review Discussion: meta-review-period

Paper Decisions Released: proceedings-decisions

Task Subtask Dates
Author Response Period Reviews released to authors. Authors must write a complete "author response" to reviewer comments". Authors are invited to submit a revised PDF, but note that they cannot add new results (unless directly relevant to the manuscript as requested by the reviewer, e.g., simulations or minor additional statistical analyses). author-response-period
Author-Review Discussion Authors can continue to interact with reviewers to tie up any loose ends while ACs oversee, but cannot post any more long responses. At the end of this period, reviewers submit a "final recommendation" which is an update of their assessment of the paper after the author's response and discussion. This assessment is visible just to ACs, to aid ACs in writing meta-reviews. discussion-period
Meta-Review Period ACs write meta-reviews. SACs & ACs discuss reviews and meta-reviews. meta-review-period
Final Decisions SACs and TPC finalize acceptances and rejections SACs (based on AC input) assign paper denominations (talks) final-decisions-period
Paper decisions released (Note that for papers that are not accepted authors will be invited to submit a Extended Abstract, details TBD). proceedings-decisions

Openreview & OpenReview Console

  • The SAC console provides an overview of all papers assigned to your ACs

  • Use the console to track review progress, deadlines, and discussion status

  • The console allows you to filter papers by status (e.g., “Missing Reviews,” “Ready for Decision”)

  • By posting comments you can contact Area Chairs or even reviewers (this is primarily the job of the area chair).

  • If you want to contact an area chair, this is either all area chairs (via area chair status and then message) or for a specific submission.

  • If you want to contact a specific area chair (and therefore, for a specific submission) go to submission status, select the submission to which the AC is connected and press Message (see the image below).

OpenReview screenshot

Review Stage

  1. Assist ACs with reviewer assignments in OpenReview

  2. Access paper assignments through your SAC console

  3. Click on “Area Chairs” to see which ACs are assigned to which papers

  4. Ensure each AC has 3-4 qualified reviewers for each paper

  5. Use the “Reviewer Assignment” tab to help ACs find appropriate reviewers:

    • Search for potential reviewers using keywords, expertise, and conflict checks

    • Recommend potential reviewers to ACs by clicking “Suggest Reviewer”

  6. Note that ACs do not have access to author identities

  7. Monitor review progress using OpenReview tools

  8. Use the “Review Progress” dashboard to track completion rates

  9. Set up email alerts for late reviews by configuring “Notification Settings”

  10. Send reminder emails to ACs with missing reviews by selecting papers and using the “Send Reminder” button

  11. Verify ACs are checking reviews for quality and respectful language

  12. Step in if an AC is unresponsive by using the “Reassign” feature if necessary

  13. Note: Submissions where the reciprocal reviewer failed to submit should be rejected

  14. Submissions where the reciprocal reviewer failed to submit should be rejected

Author-reviewer discussion Phase (april 15 - april 21)

  1. Ensure ACs initiate reviewer-author discussions:

  2. As soon as the author response is entered in the system, ACs should lead a discussion via OpenReview for each submission and make sure the reviewers engage in the discussion phase. If your assigned ACs have not initiated discussions, prompt them to do so. This one-week phase 1 of the discussions will be primarily for the reviewers to engage with the authors before the closed discussions among the reviewers and ACs.

    • Use the “Discussion Status” filter in your SAC console to identify papers without active discussions

    • Verify ACs are posting discussion prompts by checking each paper’s discussion forum

    • Prompt inactive ACs by sending direct messages through the “Message Area Chairs” function

  3. Oversee the AC-reviewer discussions:

  4. Monitor discussion activity through the “Recent Activity” feed in your console

  5. For papers with conflicting reviews (high variance in scores), use the “Flag for Attention” feature

  6. Participate in discussions where needed by posting comments with visibility set to “Area Chairs and Senior Area Chairs”

  7. Use the built-in discussion summary feature to track key points raised in longer discussions

Metareview Phase (april 22 - may 5)

  1. Guide metareview process

  2. Use the “Meta-Review Status” dashboard to track completion status

  3. Remind ACs to submit preliminary meta-reviews by using the built-in reminder function.

  4. Have meetings with the ACs

    • For one-on-one discussions with ACs

    • You can also organize meetings with all ACs at the same time for calibration, but check for conflicts of interest using the “Check Conflicts” tool first.

  5. Pay particularly close attention to borderline papers and papers in which the AC’s recommendation goes against the recommendations of the reviewers.

  6. Read all meta-reviews. Make sure they explain paper decisions to the authors. Meta-reviews should augment the reviews, and explain how the reviews, author responses, and discussion were used to arrive at the decision.

    • Provide feedback directly in OpenReview by adding comments visible only to the AC.

Decision Phase (may 7 - may 19)

  1. Review decisions suggested by Area Chairs. Potentially meet with program chairs to finalize decisions. Likely there will be (at least) 2 meetings. A meeting early in this period so the PCs get an overview of which papers are under consideration for publication in CCN-P and a second meeting with multiple SACs to make actual decisions.

  2. Be prepared to discuss all borderline papers and cases in which the recommendation of the AC goes against the recommendations of the reviewers.

  3. Update meta-reviews to accurately reflect the final decision.

  4. Notification: at the 13th of may,

General Guidelines

  • Be responsive. Respect deadlines and respond to emails as promptly as possible. Make sure that your preferred email address is accurate in your OpenReview profile and that emails from mailto:noreply@openreview.net don’t go to spam. If you will be unavailable (e.g., on vacation) for more than a few days—especially during important windows (e.g., decision-making)—please let the program chairs know as soon as possible.

  • Be proactive. It is your responsibility to ensure that the review process goes smoothly. Check in to make sure that the ACs you work with are responsive, help them find emergency reviewers, and make sure discussion is happening on their papers.

  • Be kind. It is important to acknowledge that personal situations may lead to late or unfinished work among reviewers and ACs. In the event that a reviewer or an AC is unable to complete their work on time, we encourage you to be considerate of the personal circumstances; you might have to pick up the slack in some cases. If necessary, make a back-up plan with another reviewer or AC, and be flexible to the extent possible. In all communications, exhibit empathy and understanding.

  • Respect conflicts of interest. Since the reviewing process is double blind at the level of ACs, it is your responsibility to be on the lookout for uncaught conflicts of interest. If you notice a conflict of interest with a submission that is assigned to one of your ACs, contact program chairs right away. Abide by the CCN code of conduct.

  • Please familiarize yourself with the AC guidelines.

Confidentiality

  • Do not talk to other SACs about submissions assigned to your ACs without prior approval from program chairs since other SACs may have conflicts with these submissions. Do not talk to other SACs or ACs about submissions you are an author on or submissions with which you have a conflict of interest.

  • Maintain strict confidentiality for all review materials. Don’t use or share submission content (ideas, results, code) until publicly available. Never distribute submissions outside the OpenReview platform.

Contact Info

If you encounter a situation that you are unable to resolve on your own, please contact the Technical Program Committee (TPC) at tpc@ccneuro.org.

If the issue is related to OpenReview technical issues, email the OpenReview support team directly at info@openreview.net.