Note: This document was originally at this location.

The following is mostly based on the EUROCRYPT 2021 guide prepared by Anne Canteaut and Francois-Xavier Standaert. We would like to thank them for the guideline.

We have adopted the review form of Eurocrypt 2021 (prepared by Anne Canteaut and Francois-Xavier Standaert) with some small modifications. In case you are not familiar with that review form, it's rationale is twofold:

The review form is given below, with some lines of explanation regarding the interpretation of the recommendations.

Note that the different parts of the review form will be used at different times of the review process, even if all of them will be sent to the authors for rebuttal:

It is therefore important that reviewers try to structure their reviews based on the questions in the review form!

In case anything is unclear, please contact the PC chairs and we will reflect our answers in the frequently asked questions below.



A. Paper summary.

Give a succinct and positive description of the paper's main contributions.

B. Suitability.

Does the paper belong to the conference?

  1. Yes
  2. No

C. Novelty, methodology and technical correctness

Q1. Does the paper ignore related works that overlap with the claimed results?
Q2. Is the methodology used in order to answer the research question and to demonstrate improvements over previously published state-of-the art solutions appropriate?
Q3. Are there technical flaws that affect the correctness of the claims?

Try to precisely identify the overlapping related works and the methodological/technical flaws.

D. Technical details

Q4. Are there technical details missing to verify the contribution?

(please put here technical questions/comments/suggestions you may have)

E. Editorial quality

Q5. Is the editorial quality of the paper sufficient to understand the contribution?

(please put here technical questions/comments/suggestions you may have)

F. Scientific quality. (In case answers to questions Q1 to Q5 are sufficiently positive)

Q6. How do you rate the scientific importance of the research question?
Q7. How do you rate the scientific contribution to this research question?

Note that there are no universal rules for evaluating scientific quality, and each reviewer is entitled to her or his own view. Try to motivate your opinions based on your specific field of research and whether you, or other members of the IACR community, would be interested to listen to a talk on the paper content during the conference.

G. Confidence level

  1. Weak: an educated guess
  2. Medium: quite confident but I could not check many of the details
  3. Good: I know the area and I studied the paper in sufficient detail

H. Recommendation

  1. Strong reject (novelty, methodology or correctness issues)
  2. Weak reject (editorial quality requires improvement or technical details are missing)
  3. Borderline (the research question is deemed of limited interest or the result is deemed incremental by the reviewer)
  4. Accept (the paper is found to improve the state-of-the-art on an important research question)
  5. Strong accept (breakthrough paper, best paper award candidate)

I. Comments to the PC.

This part will always remain hidden to the authors.


Strong reject
recommendations indicate fundamental errors so that the submission should not be re-submitted without substantial corrections and revisions.
Weak reject
recommendations indicate that the submission lacks a minimum level of editorial quality or technical details so that the reviewers could not be convinced by the result. Hence, a re-submission clarifying these aspect may lead to a different outcome.
recommendations indicate a (subjective) lack of interest of the PC members who reviewed the paper. In case it is a first submission, re-submitting to a different PC may be worth trying; if the paper has already been submitted multiple times, it is advisable to try a less competitive venue.
Accept and strong accept
recommendations indicate that the paper could appear in the conference. If it did not with a majority of accept recommendations, it is most likely due to a limited number of slots, so re-submission addressing the reviews is encouraged.