RecSys Review Process
Use this to reason about review-stage strategy. Reopen the current Call for Contributions, the
committees page, and any reviewer guidelines before making process claims — mechanics are
cycle-specific.
Process model
- RecSys review is mutually anonymous (double-blind). Each submission is read by at least
three PC members and overseen by a Senior PC member who synthesizes the recommendation.
- There is an author rebuttal phase (2026: June 4-9) for a short clarifying narrative.
- Reviewers weigh recommendation novelty, evaluation validity, reproducibility, clarity, and
relevance to the recommender community — not raw metric wins alone.
- The most useful reply is a decision-focused clarification that gives the Senior PC a clean
rationale for acceptance or rejection.
- Accepted papers are published in the ACM Digital Library, so camera-ready compliance and
metadata matter as much as the initial decision.
Who reviews here, and what they distrust
- The pool is a single-domain recommender community: expect at least one reviewer who has
internalized the field's reproducibility debate and will probe baseline tuning line by line.
- Because RecSys is topically tight, matches are close and an under-tuned comparison or a leaky
split gets caught rather than skimmed past.
- Borderline offline-evaluation papers usually fall on one of three edges: baselines tuned less
hard than the proposed method, a random split where a temporal one was needed, or an offline
metric asserted to imply a deployment win with no bridge.
Scoring leverage table
| Review dimension |
What raises it |
What sinks it |
| Recommendation novelty |
A named user/item modeling or evaluation idea |
An architecture swap with no recommendation-specific insight |
| Evaluation validity |
Equal-budget baselines, temporal split, full-ranking metrics, variance |
Untuned baselines, random split, sampled metrics reported as full |
| Deployment relevance |
Off-policy estimate, simulator, or A/B result |
"Offline nDCG rose, therefore users benefit" |
| Reproducibility |
A runnable anonymous repository regenerating the tables |
A promise to release code "upon acceptance" only |
| Clarity |
One notation source, honest limitations |
Buried assumptions; a random-split protocol left implicit |
Stage-by-stage realism
- Initial reviews: triage by what the Senior PC would weigh, not by reviewer tone.
- Rebuttal: the window is short; an early, precise narrative on the central evaluation objection
beats a late line-by-line reply (see
recsys-author-response).
- Decision: the Senior PC synthesizes; one unresolved evaluation-validity objection outweighs
several resolved clarity complaints.
- Post-decision: ACM Digital Library publication means the rights form and metadata become the
final gate.
Vignette: reading a split decision
Two reviewers like the method; one flags that baselines were tuned only on defaults. At RecSys
that single objection is decisive because it maps onto the community's reproducibility anxiety —
so the rebuttal must resolve that thread, with the equal-budget grid, before polishing anything
the other reviewers raised.
Output format
[Current stage] submitted / reviews / rebuttal / decision / camera-ready
[Decision actors] <PC reviewers / Senior PC>
[Likely leverage] <novelty / evaluation validity / deployment relevance / reproducibility / clarity>
[Forbidden moves] <identity leak / unseen new results / unsupported deployment claims>
[Next response move] <one action>
1---2name: recsys-review-process3description: Use when explaining or planning around ACM RecSys peer review — the mutually-anonymous model with at least three PC members and a Senior PC overseer, the rebuttal phase, how the reproducibility-crisis culture shapes reviewer priorities, the offline-versus-online evaluation lens, and how acceptance leads to ACM Digital Library publication.4---56# RecSys Review Process78Use this to reason about review-stage strategy. Reopen the current Call for Contributions, the9committees page, and any reviewer guidelines before making process claims — mechanics are10cycle-specific.1112## Process model1314- RecSys review is **mutually anonymous** (double-blind). Each submission is read by **at least15 three PC members** and overseen by a **Senior PC member** who synthesizes the recommendation.16- There is an author **rebuttal** phase (2026: June 4-9) for a short clarifying narrative.17- Reviewers weigh recommendation novelty, evaluation validity, reproducibility, clarity, and18 relevance to the recommender community — not raw metric wins alone.19- The most useful reply is a decision-focused clarification that gives the Senior PC a clean20 rationale for acceptance or rejection.21- Accepted papers are published in the **ACM Digital Library**, so camera-ready compliance and22 metadata matter as much as the initial decision.2324## Who reviews here, and what they distrust2526- The pool is a **single-domain recommender community**: expect at least one reviewer who has27 internalized the field's reproducibility debate and will probe baseline tuning line by line.28- Because RecSys is topically tight, matches are close and an under-tuned comparison or a leaky29 split gets caught rather than skimmed past.30- Borderline offline-evaluation papers usually fall on one of three edges: baselines tuned less31 hard than the proposed method, a random split where a temporal one was needed, or an offline32 metric asserted to imply a deployment win with no bridge.3334## Scoring leverage table3536| Review dimension | What raises it | What sinks it |37|---|---|---|38| Recommendation novelty | A named user/item modeling or evaluation idea | An architecture swap with no recommendation-specific insight |39| Evaluation validity | Equal-budget baselines, temporal split, full-ranking metrics, variance | Untuned baselines, random split, sampled metrics reported as full |40| Deployment relevance | Off-policy estimate, simulator, or A/B result | "Offline nDCG rose, therefore users benefit" |41| Reproducibility | A runnable anonymous repository regenerating the tables | A promise to release code "upon acceptance" only |42| Clarity | One notation source, honest limitations | Buried assumptions; a random-split protocol left implicit |4344## Stage-by-stage realism4546- Initial reviews: triage by what the Senior PC would weigh, not by reviewer tone.47- Rebuttal: the window is short; an early, precise narrative on the central evaluation objection48 beats a late line-by-line reply (see `recsys-author-response`).49- Decision: the Senior PC synthesizes; one unresolved evaluation-validity objection outweighs50 several resolved clarity complaints.51- Post-decision: ACM Digital Library publication means the rights form and metadata become the52 final gate.5354## Vignette: reading a split decision5556Two reviewers like the method; one flags that baselines were tuned only on defaults. At RecSys57that single objection is decisive because it maps onto the community's reproducibility anxiety —58so the rebuttal must resolve *that* thread, with the equal-budget grid, before polishing anything59the other reviewers raised.6061## Output format6263```text64[Current stage] submitted / reviews / rebuttal / decision / camera-ready65[Decision actors] <PC reviewers / Senior PC>66[Likely leverage] <novelty / evaluation validity / deployment relevance / reproducibility / clarity>67[Forbidden moves] <identity leak / unseen new results / unsupported deployment claims>68[Next response move] <one action>69```
brycewang-stanford