2025 Senior Area Chair (SAC) Guidelines
2025 Senior Area Chair (SAC) Guidelines Thank you for agreeing to serve as an SAC for NeurIPS 2025! This document contains an overview of your responsibilities and some guidelines for how to fulfill your role as an SAC. As an SAC, your role is to oversee the work of a small number of ACs, making sure that the reviewing process goes smoothly. SACs serve as the first point of contact for ACs if they need assistance or guidance. SACs are responsible for helping ACs chase late reviewers, calibrating decisions across ACs, and discussing borderline papers. During the final decision-making phase, SACs discuss all proposed decisions with the program chairs (PCs). Contact Info If you encounter a situation that you are unable to resolve on your own, please contact the program chairs at pc2025@neurips.cc . Any questions about conflicts of interest should go to the program chairs. If the issue is related to OpenReview, email the OpenReview support team directly at info@openreview.net . Important Dates Here is a tentative design of the key dates (all in AoE) for SACs. They are subject to fine-tuning if needed. Invited Reviewers Bid on Papers: Sat, May 17 – Wed, May 21 Check Paper Assignments: Thur, May 29 Reviewing: Thur, May 29 – Wed, Jul 2 Invite Emergency Reviewers: Thur, Jul 3 – Wed, Jul 9 Emergency reviewing: Thur, Jul 10 – Sun, Jul 20 Author Rebuttal: Thur, Jul 24 - Wed, Jul 30 Reviewer-Author Discussions: Thur, Jul 31 – Wed, Aug 6 Reviewer-AC Discussions: Thur, Aug 7 – Wed, Aug 13 Metareviews due: Wed, Aug 20 SAC-AC Discussions: Thur, Aug 21 – Wed, Aug 27 SAC-PC Discussions: Thur, Aug 28 – Wed, Sep 10 Author Notification: Thur, Sept 18 Main Tasks Preparation & AC assignment: Please ensure that your preferred email address is accurate in your OpenReview profile. We will send most emails from OpenReview (i.e., noreply@openreview.net ). Such emails are sometimes accidentally marked as spam. Please check your spam folder regularly. If you find such an email in there, please whitelist the OpenReview email address so that you will receive future emails from OpenReview. Please log into OpenReview and make sure that your profile is up to date, so that you will be assigned relevant ACs to work with. Read and agree to abide by the NeurIPS code of conduct . Read what constitutes conflict of interest for NeurIPS 2025 . In addition to the guidelines below, please familiarize yourself with the AC guidelines . You will be interacting significantly with ACs, so please make sure you understand what is expected of them. You can also view the Reviewer guidelines . You will be assigned ~10 ACs to work with. When you receive your assignment, look it over carefully and email the PCs if you have any concerns. Ensure that all papers have at least 3 quality reviews: Thur, May 29 – Wed, Jul 2 Reviews are due Wednesday, July 2. ACs should ensure that the reviewers have completed their reviews, send reminder emails if needed, and read all reviews to ensure they are up to standards. Again, your workload should be light during this period, but do check in to make sure that ACs are following up on missing reviews. Before the author response period starts, ensure that all of the papers your ACs are assigned have at least 3 high quality reviews. Make sure that ACs check for any disrespectful or derogatory language in the reviews. You are ultimately responsible for making sure the reviews are all there and high quality, so if an AC is unresponsive you will need to step in. Emergency reviewing: Thur, Jul 10 – Sun, Jul 20 and Author Rebuttal: Thur, Jul 24 - Wed, Jul 30 We are still planning on how you can get additional/emergency reviewers. We will let you know when the time comes. Ensure ACs initiate reviewer-author discussions: Thur, Jul 31 – Wed, Aug 6 As soon as the author response is entered in the system, ACs should lead a discussion via OpenReview for each submission and make sure the reviewers engage in the discussion phase. If your assigned ACs have not initiated discussions, prompt them to do so. This one-week phase 1 of the discussions will be primarily for the reviewers to engage with the authors before the closed discussions among the reviewers and ACs. Oversee the AC-reviewer discussions: Thur, Aug 7 – Wed, Aug 13 This phase 2 of the discussion period, and during these dates the reviewers should interact with the AC and among themselves. Please make sure there is active engagement, especially for the papers where there are positive and negative reviews. Metareviews: By Wed, Aug 20 Remind ACs to submit preliminary meta-reviews for each paper by August 20 and begin to schedule one-on-one discussions with them for the next phase. Consider organizing meetings between pairs or groups of ACs so that they have the chance to talk over their decisions and better calibrate; you may choose to be present for these meetings or ask that ACs meet with each other before discussing papers with you. Check carefully for COIs before asking ACs to discuss papers with each other. SACs discuss papers with ACs and make initial accept/reject decisions: Thur, Aug 21 – Wed, Aug 27 Help calibrate decisions by working closely with your ACs. Schedule meetings with them individually and/or in groups. Pay particularly close attention to borderline papers and papers in which the AC’s recommendation goes against the recommendations of the reviewers. If you feel that a particular AC needs your guidance, please read all reviews for papers assigned to them. Make sure they are respectful and acknowledge the authors’ response. Read all meta-reviews. Make sure they explain paper decisions to the authors. Meta-reviews should augment the reviews, and explain how the reviews, author responses, and discussion were used to arrive at the decision. Dismissing or ignoring a review is not acceptable unless there is a good reason for doing so. Meet with program chairs to finalize decisions: Thur, Aug 28 – Wed, Sep 10 Be prepared to discuss all borderline papers and cases in which the recommendation of the AC goes against the recommendations of the reviewers. Update meta-reviews to accurately reflect the final decision. Best Practices Be responsive. Respect deadlines and respond to emails as promptly as possible. Make sure that your preferred email address is accurate in your OpenReview profile and that emails from noreply@openreview.net don’t go to spam. If you will be unavailable (e.g., on vacation) for more than a few days—especially during important windows (e.g., decision-making)—please let the program chairs know as soon as possible. Be proactive. It is your responsibility to ensure that the review process goes smoothly. Check in to make sure that the ACs you work with are responsive, help them find emergency reviewers, and make sure discussion is happening on their papers. Be kind. It is important to acknowledge that personal situations may lead to late or unfinished work among reviewers and ACs. In the event that a reviewer or an AC is unable to complete their work on time, we encourage you to be considerate of the personal circumstances; you might have to pick up the slack in some cases. If necessary, make a back-up plan with another reviewer or AC, and be flexible to the extent possible. In all communications, exhibit empathy and understanding. Respect conflicts of interest. Since the reviewing process is double blind at the level of ACs, it is your responsibility to be on the lookout for uncaught conflicts of interest. If you notice a conflict of interest with a submission that is assigned to one of your ACs, contact program chairs right away. Do not talk to other SACs about submissions assigned to your ACs without prior approval from program chairs since other SACs may have conflicts with these submissions. Do not talk to other SACs or ACs about submissions you are an author on or submissions with which you have a conflict of interest. Familiarize yourself with the code of conduct. All participants must agree to abide by the NeurIPS code of conduct . Confidentiality You must keep everything relating to the review process confidential. Do not use ideas, code, or results from submissions in your own work until they become publicly available (e.g., via a technical report or a published paper for ideas/results, via open source for code). Do not talk about or distribute submissions (whether it is the code, or the ideas and results described in them) to anyone without prior approval from the program chairs. Code submitted for reviewing cannot be distributed. If you wish to invite an external reviewer, do so through OpenReview rather than sharing submissions through another channel. Quick Links AC guidelines Code of conduct Ethics review guidelines NeurIPS2025 Call for Papers Paper checklist guidelines Successful Page Load NeurIPS uses cookies for essential functions only. We do not sell your personal information. Our Privacy Policy » Accept
Executive Summary
This article presents the 2025 Senior Area Chair (SAC) Guidelines for the NeurIPS 2025 conference. The guidelines outline the responsibilities and tasks of SACs, including overseeing the work of Area Chairs (ACs), ensuring a smooth reviewing process, and discussing borderline papers. Key aspects of the guidelines include the SAC-AC relationship, conflict of interest, and communication protocols. The article emphasizes the importance of SACs' roles in facilitating the reviewing process and ensuring the quality of the conference. The guidelines also outline important dates, main tasks, and key contacts for SACs.
Key Points
- ▸ SACs oversee the work of ACs and ensure a smooth reviewing process
- ▸ SACs are responsible for helping ACs chase late reviewers and calibrating decisions across ACs
- ▸ SACs discuss borderline papers and proposed decisions with Program Chairs
- ▸ SACs must ensure all papers have at least 3 quality reviews
- ▸ SACs must familiarize themselves with the NeurIPS code of conduct, conflict of interest, and AC guidelines
Merits
Clear Guidelines
The article provides clear and concise guidelines for SACs, outlining their responsibilities and tasks in a straightforward manner.
Emphasis on Communication
The guidelines emphasize the importance of communication between SACs, ACs, and Program Chairs, highlighting the need for regular check-ins and updates.
Focus on Quality
The guidelines stress the importance of ensuring the quality of reviews and papers, with SACs responsible for reviewing and calibrating decisions.
Demerits
Limited Scope
The guidelines primarily focus on the SAC role, with limited information on the broader conference organization and logistics.
Lack of Flexibility
The guidelines are presented as a set of rigid rules, with limited flexibility for SACs to adapt to changing circumstances.
Expert Commentary
The 2025 Senior Area Chair (SAC) Guidelines for the NeurIPS 2025 conference provide a clear and concise outline of the responsibilities and tasks of SACs. The guidelines emphasize the importance of communication, quality, and conflict of interest, highlighting the critical role that SACs play in facilitating the reviewing process. While the guidelines are primarily focused on the SAC role, they also have broader implications for conference organization and logistics. In particular, the guidelines highlight the need for flexibility and adaptability in the reviewing process, with SACs responsible for ensuring that all parties involved are free from conflict and that the reviews are accurate and fair.
Recommendations
- ✓ Program Chairs should provide more detailed information on the conference organization and logistics to ensure that SACs are fully informed and prepared for their role.
- ✓ The guidelines should be revised to include more flexibility and adaptability, allowing SACs to respond to changing circumstances and ensure the quality and fairness of reviews.
