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
[Current stage] submitted / phase 1 / full review / response / decision
[Decision actors] <PC/SPC/AC/SAC/chairs>
[Likely leverage] <paper clarity / factual correction / ethics / reproducibility>
[Forbidden moves] <contact reviewers / new results / identity leakage>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → IJCAI-Skills/skills/ijcai-review-process/SKILL.md
1---2name: ijcai-review-process3description: 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.4---567# IJCAI Review Process89Use this to reason about review-stage strategy. Reopen the current CFP, FAQ, peer-review10principles, and conflict policy before making process claims.1112## Process model1314- Phase 1 can be decisive. IJCAI-ECAI 2026 gave every paper two PC reviews first; papers15 with two good-quality but insufficiently positive reviews could receive summary rejection16 without author response.17- Papers advancing to full review receive additional review and discussion by PC/SPC members,18 with AC coordination and SAC cross-checking.19- The response is concise and visible to the decision group specified by current rules; it is20 not a dialogue with reviewers.21- Ethics concerns can be flagged by reviewers and escalated to the Ethics Chair.22- Conflicts include recent coauthors, advisor/student relationships, same institution,23 current grants/projects, sponsorship, personal relationships, or animosity under the IJCAI24 COI policy.25- Authors must not try to identify or contact reviewers, and reviewers must preserve26 submission confidentiality.2728## Decision actors and where leverage lives2930| Stage | Who decides | Author leverage | Forbidden |31| --- | --- | --- | --- |32| 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 |33| Full review | PC, SPC, AC discussion | Concise response on pressing questions and factual errors | New experiments, code links, or scope changes |34| Decision | AC recommends, SAC cross-checks, chairs finalize | Clarity already in the paper, ethics flags resolved | Contacting or guessing reviewer identity |35| Ethics escalation | Ethics Chair | Confidential channel for unethical-review concerns | Using ethics box to argue scores |3637Because IJCAI spans many AI subcommunities, a paper can draw one in-area and one out-of-area38reviewer; the out-of-area reviewer is often where summary-reject risk concentrates, so the39phase-1 readability of the contribution matters more than at single-topic venues.4041## Worked vignette: surviving phase 14243A constraint-reasoning paper gets two competent reviews that are lukewarm because the second44reviewer, from a learning background, could not locate the contribution by page two. Under45IJCAI rules this profile is a summary-reject candidate before any response. The leverage is not46in the rebuttal: it is in writing so a non-specialist PC member sees the novel claim on page47one. Diagnose this risk pre-submission, since phase 1 may give no chance to reply.4849## Reviewer pushback and the venue-specific fix5051- "Reviewer misread the method." If it is decision-critical, correct it precisely in the52 response with a pointer to the submitted section; do not relitigate the score.53- "Two okay-but-tepid reviews." Recognize this as the classic IJCAI summary-reject pattern and54 fix readability upstream; you cannot count on a response stage.55- "Suspected reviewer is a competitor." Do not investigate; raise a conflict or ethics concern56 through the official channel only.5758## Output format5960```text61[Current stage] submitted / phase 1 / full review / response / decision62[Decision actors] <PC/SPC/AC/SAC/chairs>63[Likely leverage] <paper clarity / factual correction / ethics / reproducibility>64[Forbidden moves] <contact reviewers / new results / identity leakage>65```6667---6869**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `IJCAI-Skills/skills/ijcai-review-process/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain