IJCNN 2025 REVIEWER GUDELINES

The paper review process is managed through the Microsoft Conference Management Toolkit (CMT). To participate, log in here. If you do not yet have a CMT account, please register here.

To improve the accuracy of paper assignments based on reviewer expertise, it is essential that each reviewer is registered with the Toronto Paper Matching System (TPMS). Reviewers with an existing TPMS account are encouraged to login and update their profiles, while those new to TPMS should register to optimize the matching process.

Upon your first login on CMT as an IJCNN 2025 reviewer, select one primary subject area and up to three secondary subject areas. Selecting a broad range of secondary subjects helps us ensure sufficient reviewer coverage for all submissions.

IJCNN 2025 employes a double-blind review process, where each paper undergoes an anonymous evaluation by three independent experts following our ethical guidelines. Reviewers are automatically selected based on their expertise in relation to each paper’s topic.

Conflicts of interest include instances where reviewers and authors share the same institution or have familial, collaborative, or other affiliations. Reviewers will indicate their confidence in the paper’s subject matter, score the paper based on six criteria, and provide comments for authors.

Technical Program Chairs and Area Chairs will carefully consider review scores, particularly for borderline papers, and will select the final list of accepted papers, aiming for an acceptance rate of 40%.

Reviewer confidence levels range from Excellent (highly certain and knowledgeable) to Poor (educated guess with limited understanding), reflecting varying degrees of familiarity and certainty with the paper’s subject matter.

Each paper is scored based on six criteria. A high-quality paper performs well across all criteria. Scores range from Excellent (top 10%) to Poor (rejection recommended).

1. Relevance to IJCNN: Is the paper within scope, and are its findings impactful and timely?
2. Technical Quality: Is the work technically sound, well-supported, and complete? Does it contribute meaningfully to the field?
3. Novelty: Are the problems or approaches new? Is there potential for others to build upon this work?
4. Quality of Presentation: Is the paper clear, well-organized, and sufficiently informative? Does it provide adequate detail for replication?
5. Comments for Authors: Summarize and provide feedback on each criterion. High scores should align with positive comments, and any critical feedback must avoid disclosing the reviewer’s identity.
6. Overall Recommendation: Make a recommendation ranging from Strong Accept to Strong Reject based on technical strength, impact, evaluation quality, reproducibility, and ethical considerations.