Guidelines for Review of Summaries

  • Disposition Categories
    • ACCEPT : The summary should be accepted as is as a basis for the full paper.
    • ACCEPT WITH SUGGESTED REVISION : The summary should be accepted as a basis for the full paper, and the suggested changes may or may not be made in the full paper (changes are entirely at the option of the author).
    • REJECT UNLESS REVISED : The summary should be rejected unless the author responds suitably to the reviewer's comments in the full paper (the revised full paper will be sent to reviewers in order to review for comments).
    • REJECT : The summary should be flatly rejected (the author can appeal the rejection directly to the Technical Program Chair).


  • Information for Reviewer
    1. Each reviewer will be assigned his/her own username and password which are necessary to gain access to the review system. If you have trouble accessing the system, please contact the TPC. The usernames are purposely generically assigned to protect the identities of reviewers.
    2. Your username and password should not be disclosed to others. However, while you may choose to delegate a coworker or colleague of yours to help you review summaries, you are fully responsible for the review comments and dispositions made using your username/password. Therefore, it would be more appropriate (and just as easy) to simply direct your helper(s) to the TPC so that they may obtain their own reviewer username/password(s).
    3. The papers (summaries and full papers) are available solely for the purpose of conducting the review. Any other use of the papers or web site could be considered a violation of professional or ethical standards. For example, reviewers should not widely distribute papers, nor should they widely discuss or disseminate paper content. The author may be in the process of preparing other papers or journal articles, and there is an implied agreement that reviewers will not dilute those efforts. Additionally, the final form of an accepted paper may contain differences or corrections from the revision being reviewed.
    4. Simply put: Please use common sense and your best judgement in all these matters.
    5. In a nutshell, the most important "rule of thumb" you should apply is: Would you or other members of Reactor Physics society benefit from reading this paper or attending its presentation? If so, then the paper should be accepted (with revision if needed).