Reviewing will take place between the 14th and 27th of May. Please ensure that you complete your reviews in good time. You can email the program chairs using the email address hi@taig-icml.com in case of any questions.
Please complete all assigned reviews by 23:59 AoE on May 27th.
Please bear the following in mind while reviewing:
Aim to make your feedback constructive and actionable for authors.
As this is a workshop, some submissions may present preliminary work. Such work should be partially assessed according to the potential for the research direction to deliver impressive future work.
Despite this, all papers should be polished in their quality of presentation and writing and should meaningfully engage with prior work.
The review form will be structured as follows:
Please provide a short title for your review.
Please provide a 2-3 sentence descriptive summary of the paper. This should not contain any assessment or critique.
Please discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, as well as any suggested modifications or improvements. Please address its quality, novelty, relevance, and relation to prior literature, as well as any other relevant concerns.
Please assign the paper a rating to indicate its overall quality including clarity of writing.
4: excellent
3: good
2: fair
1: poor
Please assign the paper a rating to indicate its novelty and degree of contribution to the literature.
4: excellent
3: good
2: fair
1: poor
Please assign the paper a rating to indicate its relevance to the topics of the workshop, as outlined in the call for papers.
4: excellent
3: good
2: fair
1: poor
Please assign the paper a rating to indicate its degree of interaction with prior work and current policy landscape (if appropriate).
4: excellent
3: good
2: fair
1: poor
Please provide an overall recommendation for this paper:
5: Strong accept. The paper is excellent in its analysis, presentation, and rigour. All claims are backed up with sufficient argument and evidence. The topic is highly relevant and important. The paper is well-situated in both the prior literature and the current AI governance landscape.
4: Accept. The paper presents solid analysis with good rigour and clear presentation. Most claims are well-supported with appropriate evidence. The topic is relevant to current discourse, with meaningful connections to prior literature and the AI governance landscape, though with minor gaps or limitations.
3: Weak accept. The paper shows potential with reasonable analysis, though some aspects need strengthening. Several claims lack sufficient support. The topic has relevance and the paper attempts to connect with existing literature and AI governance, but these connections could be better developed.
2: Weak reject. The paper demonstrates some merit but contains notable weaknesses in analysis or rigour. Many claims lack sufficient evidence. While potentially relevant, engagement with prior literature or AI governance is limited.
1: Reject. The paper exhibits significant deficiencies in analysis, presentation, and rigour. Claims are largely unsupported. The topic lacks relevance or fails to advance understanding. The paper shows inadequate engagement with literature and governance context. The paper is irrelevant to the topic of the workshop.
Please indicate how confident you are in your evaluation:
5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment.
4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain.
3: You are fairly confident in your assessment.
2: You are willing to defend your assessment, but it is quite likely that you did not understand the central parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.
1: Your assessment is an educated guess.