Run fair peer review
Give reviewers structured scoring and comment forms, keep identities anonymized for single- or double-blind review, run an author rebuttal window, and record chair decisions in one place.
Walkthrough, 1 min
Run fair peer review walkthrough video
Step by step.
- 1.
Reviewers open their queue
Each reviewer sees only the papers assigned to them, with the full submission and any supplementary files.
- 2.
Score against criteria
Reviewers complete a structured form — scores per criterion such as originality, soundness, and clarity, an overall recommendation, and confidential comments to the chair.
- 3.
Anonymization is applied
In single-blind review, reviewer identities are hidden from authors. In double-blind review, author identities are also hidden from reviewers throughout the process.
- 4.
Authors respond in the rebuttal window
During a time-boxed rebuttal period, authors read their reviews and submit a written response addressing reviewer concerns before decisions are finalized.
- 5.
Reviewers and chairs discuss
Reviewers can discuss borderline papers and update scores after reading the rebuttal. The discussion stays confidential to the committee.
- 6.
Area chairs write meta-reviews
When the meta-review stage is on, area chairs assigned to a track or a single paper summarize the reviews and recommend a decision.
- 7.
Chairs make decisions
Chairs see aggregated scores, reviews, and rebuttals per paper and record an accept, reject, or revise decision.
- 8.
Notifications go out
Decision notifications are sent to authors using customizable templates, and accepted authors move into the camera-ready workflow.
What you'll see.
- A reviewer's structured scoring and comment form
- How single- and double-blind anonymization hides the right identities
- The author rebuttal window and confidential reviewer discussion
- Meta-reviews written by area chairs
- The chair's decision view with aggregated scores per paper
Questions.
What review models are supported?
Single-blind and double-blind review are both supported, with automatic author anonymization applied in double-blind mode.
Can authors respond to reviews?
Yes. You can enable a time-boxed rebuttal window in which authors read their reviews and submit a written response before chairs decide.
Are reviewer comments to the chair private?
Yes. Reviewers can leave confidential comments visible only to the program committee, separate from the feedback shared with authors.
Who makes the final decision?
Program chairs make the accept, reject, or revise decision, using the aggregated reviewer scores, comments, and rebuttals as input.
Other walkthroughs.
- Create a conference from your call for papersPaste or upload your call for papers and review the pre-filled title, dates, tracks and venue before you create the conference.
- Assign reviewers without conflictsAssign reviewers per track while the system flags conflicts and shows workload.
- Suggested reviewers and keynote speakersBuild your committee from suggested reviewers and keynote speakers for each track. You confirm every invitation.
- Registration form builder and checkoutBuild a registration form with your own questions, then see the attendee checkout.
- Configure ticketing and paymentsTicket tiers, discount codes, Stripe-hosted checkout where enabled, and QR tickets.
- Exhibitors and lead scanningManage exhibitors and booths, and let each exhibitor team scan attendee badges for leads.
- Self check-in kiosk and badge printingLet attendees check themselves in on a tablet and print their badge.
- Email campaigns with an AI draftWrite to a segment of your audience, start from an AI draft and preview before anything is sent.
- Branded tickets, badges and certificatesApply your logo and colors to tickets, badges and certificates, and preview each layout.
- Run the live eventThe attendee hub: schedule, personal agenda, networking and messages, and the exhibitor directory.
Try it on your own conference.
Small academic conferences run peer review free. Paid plans start at $290 per event.