Area Chair (AC) Guidelines

This page provides guidelines for Area Chairs (ACs) for AISTATS 2026. It references previous AISTATS conferences’ practices and the AC guidelines for NeurIPS 2023.

Responsibilities of an AC

1. Identify desk-rejection cases (e.g., papers with unacceptable formatting issues, dual submissions; see FAQ below).
2. Help reviewer assignments by recruiting expert reviewers and adjusting reviewer assignments.
3. Monitor the review process and ensure reviewers are responsive.
4. Ensure the submissions have high-quality reviewers.
5. Organize reviewer discussions after author feedback.
6. Make acceptance/rejection recommendations based on reviews, author feedback, discussions, and their own understanding of the submission.
7. Recommend accepted submissions for oral talks.
8. Resolve any issues during the review process, e.g., by recruiting emergency reviewers, addressing concerns from both reviewers and authors, and/or raising concerns with Senior ACs and Program Chairs.

Important Dates

Dates may be subject to change. All dates are Anywhere on Earth (AoE; UTC-12), end of day, unless specified otherwise. 

• Abstract submission deadline: September 25, 2025
• Bidding phase: September 29, 2025 - October 6, 2025
• Paper submission deadline: October 2, 2025
• Supplementary material submission deadline: October 9, 2025
• Paper-reviewer initial assignments: October 11, 2025
• Review period: October 14, 2025 - November 10, 2025
• Checking and soliciting emergency reviews: November 11, 2025 - November 20, 2025
• Reviews released to authors: November 21 (noon), 2025
• Author rebuttal period: November 21 (noon), 2025 - November 30, 2025
• Author-reviewer discussion period: December 1, 2025 - December 8, 2025
• Reviewer-AC discussion period: December 9, 2025 - December 15, 2025
• AC meta reviews: December 15, 2025
• AC-SAC discussion period: December 16, 2025 - December 22, 2025
• SAC initial decisions: January 6, 2026
• Paper final decision notifications: January 23, 2026
• Journal-to-conference track submission due: January 31, 2026
• Conference dates: May 2, 2026 - May 5, 2026

Update September 16, 2025: Please note the changes in dates for the bidding, review, and discussion periods.

Update October 14, 2025: Review period start date has changed (from October 11 to 14).

Update November 21, 2025: Author rebuttal period start and end dates has changed (pushed back by 1.5 days).  

Update November 27, 2025: Author rebuttal deadline has been extended (by 1.5 days).  

Update December 1, 2025: Author-reviewer discussion period has now begun (start date moved by 1 day).  

Main Tasks

Below is a list of tasks (and detailed explanations) that an AC is expected to conduct.

1. Registrations on OpenReview
   • Make sure your profile on OpenReview is up-to-date, including conflicts of interest and expertise topics.
   • Import all papers to your OpenReview profile.
   • Read and agree to abide by the AISTATS code of conduct. 
2. Paper bidding
   • Papers are assigned to ACs and reviewers using a combination of bids and a matching algorithm.
   • Check submissions quickly for desk-reject or conflict-of-interest cases.
   • Be flexible with papers outside your expertise and contact the Senior AC if needed.
3. Reviewer assignment adjustments
   • Ensure each submission in your batch has four suitable reviewers with diverse perspectives.
   • Secure expert reviewers early to reduce borderline/misjudged cases. 
4. Monitor the review process
   • Send reminders for review submissions.
   • Recruit emergency reviewers if needed, especially a week before review release.
   • Request review rewrites if appropriate, ensuring evidence for claims.
5. Author–Reviewer discussion
   • Ensure engagement between reviewers and authors during this period.
   • Encourage acknowledgment of author comments and note any score changes.
6. Reviewer–AC discussion
   • Lead discussions, summarizing pros/cons and major disagreements.
   • Follow up on confidential messages from reviewers/authors appropriately.
7. Decision making and meta-review
   • Submit meta-reviews and decisions on time.
   • Base decisions on the paper, reviews, author feedback, and discussions, justifying clearly.
   • Reach out early to SAC if uncertain.

   • Provide constructive feedback for rejections.

Best Practices

• Respect deadlines and respond promptly.
• Notify SAC if unavailable for critical periods.
• Be professional, thorough, and fair.
• Show empathy toward reviewers facing challenges.
• Report unethical or suspicious behavior to SAC and Program Chairs.

Writing the Meta-review

Adapted from NeurIPS 2025 AC guidelines. Original source: Chris Williams and John Lafferty.

• Focus on review content over scores.
• Judge review quality rather than confidence scores alone.
• Compare keywords from reviewers, authors, and system matches.
• Note whether author feedback addressed reviewer concerns.
• Disclose if new, non-review information influenced your decision.
• Justify in detail when overruling unanimous reviewer opinions.
• Take a stand on borderline papers.
• Counter biases against less fashionable research topics.

More tips: this blog post.

Use of Generative AI

Large language models (LLMs) cannot be used to write reviews or meta-reviews. Refer to the Ethical Conduct for Peer Review section in the Reviewer Guidelines for the policy statement.

Authors may utilize LLMs (e.g., for grammar checking), but they are responsible for all content. LLMs cannot be authors. Refer to the Use of Generative AI section in the Call for Papers for the policy statement. 

Updated September 9, 2025: Added references to the AI/LLM policies stated in the Call for Papers and the Reviewer Guidelines.

Confidentiality

Keep review process details confidential. Do not use submission content until publicly released. Avoid sharing ideas, code, or results without approval. Consult SAC or Program Chairs before discussing assigned submissions with others.

Nomination

The reviewers and ACs can be nominated via the following form: Google Form

Frequently Asked Questions

1. How do I contact the Senior Area Chair (SAC) and/or the Program Chairs?

   Use OpenReview’s contact functions once assigned to an SAC, or email Program Chairs if provided.

2. What if the paper does not have the reproducibility checklist?

   Not a desk-reject criterion, but check during author feedback and remind accepted authors to include it in the camera-ready version.

3. What is the page limit?

   8 pages for the main submission plus references. Mark violations accordingly.

4. What else counts as format violations?

   Breaking anonymity, dual submission, or unauthorized format changes. Mark and forward to Program Chairs if unsure.