# ACM MM 2026 review form > Simulate ACM Multimedia 2026-style reviews: Paper Summary, multimedia Suitability, Strengths, Weaknesses, the six-level Preliminary Rating (Reject … Accept), confidence and award nomination. - Venue: ACM International Conference on Multimedia - Form status: modeled, not official. Fields and labels are verbatim from the official ACM MM 2024 reviewer guidelines (the last edition that published the form); the 2025–2026 guidelines do not show the form, so they may have changed. The 1–6 numbering of the rating is ours. - Official source: https://2024.acmmm.org/reviewer_guidelines - Overall score: Preliminary Rating, 1–6 - Rough acceptance bar (our simulation): mean ≥ 4 - Web page: https://reviewpaper.ai/venues/acm-multimedia ## How reviewers read the paper ACM MM reviewers judge novelty (what the paper contributes and its value to the community), scientific rigor (experiment design, reproducibility, support for claims, code/data release) and multimedia suitability, separating minor camera-ready fixes from major flaws. Papers on new problems should not be devalued for lacking a new algorithm; arXiv is not a publication. The rebuttal cannot add new experiments. Final reviews and responses become public on OpenReview. - Golden rule: write the review you would like to receive. - Critique "the paper"; do not address the authors as "you". - No vague "it is well known that…" claims; cite specific peer-reviewed work (your own only rarely). - Do not request new experiments for the rebuttal; say clearly what should be clarified. - Neutral proof-reading requests; avoid "native English speaker" wording. **Where the bar sits.** ACM MM 2025 accepted 1,250 of 5,330 research papers (23.5%; 2024: 26.2%). No score thresholds are public; on the 1–6 scale a mean of ≥ 4 (Borderline Accept) is a rough proxy for acceptance. ## Reviewer form, field by field ### 1. Paper Summary Type: free text. About five sentences on what the paper does and claims. ### 2. Suitability Type: single choice. Choose one. ACM MM prefers multimodal/multimedia research. - unsuitable for the MM venue as it involves unimodal/unimedia processing - unimodal/unimedia in nature but of sufficient interest to the multimedia community - definitely suitable for MM as the work demonstrates multimedia processing ### 3. Paper Strengths Type: list of points. Soundness, significance and novelty, and relevance to multimedia; value to the community. ### 4. Weaknesses Type: list of points. Same axes. Separate minor errors fixable for camera-ready from major flaws that warrant rejection. Check scientific rigor: experiment design, reproducibility, support for claims, code/data release. ### 5. Preliminary Rating Type: score, 1–6. Preliminary rating before the rebuttal; a final recommendation follows the discussion. - **6**: Accept - This submission should definitely be presented at ACM Multimedia. - **5**: Weak Accept - I would need strong arguments to reject this submission. - **4**: Borderline Accept - I lean towards acceptance, but I could be convinced otherwise. - **3**: Borderline Reject - I lean towards rejection, but I could be convinced otherwise. - **2**: Weak Reject: I would need strong arguments to accept this submission. - **1**: Reject: This submission should definitely not be presented at ACM Multimedia. ### 6. Confidence Score Type: score, 1–4. How certain you are about your assessment. - **4**: Very Confident: You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work. - **3**: Confident: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. - **2**: Somewhat Confident: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is not impossible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. - **1**: Not Confident: Your assessment is an educated guess. The submission is not in your area or the submission was difficult to understand. ### 7. Award Type: single choice. Choose one. - No: This paper should not be considered for an outstanding paper award. - Yes: This paper should be considered for an outstanding paper award. ## Area chair meta-review ACM MM ACs summarize each paper's strengths and weaknesses and make a recommendation; the AC form is not public. Recommendation options: Accept (oral) · Accept (poster) · Reject ## ACM MM submission requirements 1. 6–8 pages plus up to 2 pages of references; no appendix in the main file 2. Double-blind; complete OpenReview profiles for all authors 3. Multimodal / multimedia scope (out-of-scope papers may be desk-rejected) 4. At most 10 submissions per author ## LLM policy ACM MM 2026 allows AI tools only to polish review language; clear evidence of AI-generated reviews can get the reviewer's own papers desk-rejected. ACM policy forbids uploading confidential submissions to generative AI. Official policy: https://2026.acmmm.org/site/review-process-guidelines.html --- Simulate reviews of your own draft in this venue's form: https://reviewpaper.ai/new?venue=acm-multimedia (3 free reviews). Sample report: https://reviewpaper.ai/sample. reviewpaper.ai is for authors checking their own unpublished drafts. If you are an assigned reviewer, follow your venue's LLM policy: most venues forbid putting a submission you are reviewing into any external AI tool. Not affiliated with any conference.