Following a format similar to ACM CHI, we are electing to share more information about the reviewing process. This information is intended to make the reviewing process more transparent and to help guide authors in preparing a rebuttal.
We received 162 submissions. Of these 4 submissions were desk rejected and 4 submissions were quick rejected. These papers were either not anonymized or did not contain enough detail to replicate the work.
In total, 154 papers went out for full review. 619 reviews were completed. 151 papers received four reviews and 3 papers received five reviews.
Each paper has an overall score calculated as the mean of the reviewers’ scores. Reviewers rated each submission with the following scale:
6 – Definitely accept: I would argue strongly for accepting this submission.
5 – Probably accept: I would argue for accepting this submission.
4 – Rather accept: but I would not argue for accepting this submission.
3 – Rather reject: but I would not argue for rejecting this submission.
2 – Probably reject: I would argue for rejecting this submission.
1 – Definitely reject: I would argue strongly for rejecting this submission.
The mean paper score was 3.27 (SD=.87). Assuming a 20% acceptance rate similar to IEEE ISMAR 2021 journal track submissions, papers with a mean score of 4.0 or higher would have a better chance of acceptance. Assuming a 30% acceptance rate, papers with a mean score of 3.75 or higher have a better chance of acceptance. However, score is not the only criteria for paper acceptance. Our goal is to accept papers of high quality and there is no predefined acceptance rate.
