All ACM RESPECT 2026 submissions are reviewed using a single-anonymous review process managed through HotCRP. There are four phases to the review process: bid, review, discussion, and recommendation. In addition to the Program Co-Chairs, two other types of volunteers contribute to this process:
- Reviewers provide high-quality reviews of submissions, providing authors with feedback to improve their work for presentation or future submission. Volunteer to be an emergency reviewer.
- Track Chairs meta-review each submission and provide a recommendation and feedback to the Program Co-Chairs.
Each submission will receive at least 3 reviews and a meta-review. All reviews are submitted through HotCRP.
Reviewer Guidelines
As a Reviewer, we ask that you carefully read each submission assigned to you and write a constructive review that concisely summarizes what you believe the submission to be about. When reviewing, you are responsible for providing a fair and equitable review.
The following table illustrates how to interpret the review criteria for each of the tracks of papers. Please refer to this table to help better understand the emphases or characteristics of the track for which you will be reviewing. For convenience, you may also download a PDF copy of the paper review criteria.
| Criteria | Research Papers | Experience Reports | Perspectives | Thematic Papers |
| Population & Conference Alignment | This submission clearly focuses on the experiences of at least one underrepresented, historically marginalized group in computing (e.g., women, African-American, Latinx, Native Americans, LGBTQIA+, persons with disabilities, community college, rural, socio-economically disadvantaged, and first-generation college students). | |||
| Track Specific Criteria | Please describe the extent to which the submission’s research methods, findings, and discussion are clearly described and informed by the theoretical framework, scholarly literature, and positionality statement. Be specific, using examples from the submission when possible. For WIP, methods may be somewhat limited in rigor, and findings may be preliminary. Discussion should clearly outline the exploratory nature of the work and indicate next steps or scope of future work. The limitations section should be clear on the number of participants, progress towards project completion, and how these may affect preliminary findings. | Please describe the extent to which the submission includes clear descriptions of context, audience, goals, positionality, and outcomes. Be as specific as possible, using examples from the submission when possible. For WIP, authors should clearly state the progress towards the project’s completion. Methods may be somewhat limited in rigor, and outcomes may be preliminary. Discussion should include next steps or scope of future work. The limitations section should be clear on the number of participants, degree of project completion, and how these may affect the presented outcomes or findings. | Please describe the extent to which the submission clearly articulates lessons learned, critical opinions, implications for theory, reflections, positionality, etc. that align with the conference’s general theme (unless submitted under the Themetic Track, at which the work should align with the specific theme). Be specific, using examples from the submission when possible. | Please describe the extent to which the submission addresses the theme of ‘Equity-focused CS Education: Honoring the Plurality of our Community.’ To what extent does the submission examine or attempt to solve a problem within computing education from an interdisciplinary lens? How do authors incorporate various frameworks, theories, methodologies, experiences, and backgrounds to conduct work in alignment with the conference’s overall mission? What types of expertise are leveraged in their work? |
| Limitations | Please describe the extent to which the author(s) address the variety of limitations (generalizability/transferability of findings, identities of focus, intersectionality of participant identities, applicability of the research, etc.). Be specific, using examples from the submission when possible. | Please describe the extent to which the author(s) address the variety of limitations (generalizability/transferability of findings, identities of focus, intersectionality of participant identities, applicability of the research, etc.). Be specific, using examples from the submission when possible. Note: This may be omitted if the submission is a Perspectives paper. | ||
| Equitable Language | Please describe the extent to which the author(s) make use of equitable language when describing participants, communities, and focus populations. Be specific, using examples from the submission when possible. With regard to disability, this could mean person-first or identity-first language, but should avoid euphemisms for disability. | |||
| Positionality Statement | Does the submission contain a high-quality positionality statement? Is there evidence that the author(s) have considered and articulated how their identity/ies influence what work they did, how they do/did this work, and the outcomes or impact of their work? Following the disability community’s ethos, “Nothing about us, without us,” do submissions include a statement about the authors’ proximity to the subject (e.g., disability) or focus population? | |||
| Style, Writing, & Format | Is the submission clear, well-organized, and written to be accessible to a wide range of conference participants? If you answer no, please give a justification. | |||
- Before you begin your review, start by reading the ACM RESPECT 2026 Call for Contributions and Policies on Generative AI, LLMs, and Related Tools.
- As you write your review, please be specific and detailed. Your main critique of the paper should be written in terms of a list of strengths and weaknesses. You can use bullet points here, but also explain your arguments. Your discussion, more than your score, will help the authors, fellow reviewers, and track chairs understand the basis for your recommendation, so please be thorough.
- As you reflect and revise your review, consider a few ways to ensure your review is equitable from the CHI 22 Equitable Reviewing Guide:
- Be honest about your expertise. If a paper uses a methodology outside of your expertise, then acknowledge what you do or do not know about that methodology. It is important not to discredit or unfairly score a paper based on our own preferences in methodological approaches.
- Reflect on and communicate your personal biases. Think about whether you are making assumptions about the paper that might just be grounded in a lack of information or your own personal preferences. We all have positionality.
- Consider your language biases. Are your writing critiques based on preferences of Western academic standards (e.g., the Oxford comma, grammar minimalism, parallel writing structure)?
- The International Society of the Learning Sciences has put together the 10 ISLS Golden Rules for Reviewers. Toward the goal of creating a more equitable and constructive review process, please read this resource as part of your review process.
Anonymized Reviews
Author Guidelines have instructed authors to make reasonable efforts to hide their identities, including omitting their names, affiliations, and acknowledgments. This information will, of course, be included in the published version. Likewise, reviewers should make every effort to keep their identities invisible to the authors.
Reviewer Timeline
The following dates describe the review timeline for ACM RESPECT 2026. Please consider your workload around these dates before accepting a reviewer invitation. Your timely contributions are crucial to a high-quality peer review.
Reviewing Timeline
- Feb 6: Abstracts due in HotCRP
- Feb 13: Paper Submissions due for all types in HotCRP
- Feb 16–22: Reviewer bidding period/Accessibility review
- Feb 23–24: Reviewers assigned
- Feb 25 – Mar 22: REVIEWING PERIOD
- Mar 22: REVIEWS DUE
- Mar 23-29: Review Discussion
- Apr 6–8: Metareviews due (Track Chairs only)
- April 11–13: Notification to authors
- April 27: Camera Ready Submissions due for accepted papers
- June 8–10: ACM RESPECT 2026 Conference – Equity-focused CS Education: Honoring the Plurality of our Community