What conference reviewers look for
Conventions vary a great deal by field. In computer science, conference papers are full publications; in many other fields a conference accepts abstracts and the paper comes later.
Know which kind of submission you're writing
Calls ask for different things, and they are judged differently.
| Type | Typical length | What reviewers judge |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract | 150–500 words | Relevance, clarity, and whether there is a result |
| Extended abstract | 1–4 pages | The idea and early evidence |
| Full paper | 6–12 pages, by template | Novelty, soundness, evaluation, clarity |
| Poster or demo proposal | 1–2 pages | Interest to attendees and feasibility |
Lead with the contribution
Reviewers typically score novelty, technical quality, significance and clarity. Make their job easy: state the problem, the gap and your contribution in the first page, and in computer science and engineering consider a short bulleted list of contributions at the end of the introduction.
Then make sure the evaluation actually supports each claimed contribution. An unsupported claim is the first thing a reviewer writes down.
Anonymous review
For double-blind venues, remove author names and affiliations, refer to your own earlier work in the third person, strip acknowledgements and funding, and check that linked code or data doesn't reveal who you are. Check file metadata too.
Read the venue's policy on preprints. Some restrict posting or publicizing a preprint during review.
Conference abstracts
An abstract-only submission needs a result, even a preliminary one. "Results will be presented" is a common reason for rejection. Follow the required headings, stay inside the word limit, and match one of the listed themes explicitly.
After acceptance
Address the reviewers' comments in the camera-ready version, complete the copyright or licence form, and register, since many conferences require at least one author to register and present for the paper to appear in the proceedings.