# COLM 2026 review form > Simulate COLM 2026-style reviews: Summary, Reasons To Accept, Reasons To Reject, Questions, assessed across COLM's five dimensions (empiricism, technological impact, ambition, understanding, clarity and honesty), with a 1–10 rating and confidence. - Venue: Conference on Language Modeling - Form status: modeled, not official. COLM's OpenReview form is not public. The five evaluation dimensions come from the official 2026 review guidelines; the field list (Summary, Reasons To Accept/Reject, Questions) and the 1–10 rating and 1–5 confidence wording follow earlier COLM reviews and OpenReview defaults, not a confirmed 2026 form. - Official source: https://colm.cc/Conferences/2026/ReviewGuidelines - Overall score: Rating, 1–10 - Rough acceptance bar (our simulation): mean ≥ 6 - Web page: https://reviewpaper.ai/venues/colm ## How reviewers read the paper COLM asks reviewers to weigh five dimensions without mechanistic measures of quality: Empiricism, Data and Evaluation; Technological Impact; Ambition, Vision, Forward-outlook; Understanding Depth, Principled Approach; and Clarity, Honesty and Trust. Weakness on one dimension is not an automatic reject, especially for ambitious and honest work, while strength on one does not compensate for being very weak on others. Small-scale work should not be penalized for lacking large compute. Reviews of accepted papers become public. - Do not apply mechanistic quality measures (e.g. "no SOTA", "too few benchmarks") as automatic rejection reasons. - Do not penalize small-scale or academic-compute work for lacking large-scale experiments. - Credit honesty about limitations; do not treat an honest limitations section as a weakness. - Respectful tone; reviews of accepted papers are published. **Where the bar sits.** COLM accepted 28.9% in 2024. Accepted papers averaged about 6.4–6.5 on the 1–10 rating in 2024 and 2025 (Paper Copilot). Rough rule: mean ≥ 6 competitive, 5.25–6 borderline. ## Reviewer form, field by field ### 1. Summary Type: free text. What the paper does and claims, in your own words. ### 2. Reasons To Accept Type: list of points. Strengths across COLM's dimensions: Empiricism, Data and Evaluation; Technological Impact; Ambition, Vision, Forward-outlook; Understanding Depth, Principled Approach; Clarity, Honesty and Trust. ### 3. Reasons To Reject Type: list of points. Weaknesses across the same dimensions. Weakness on one dimension is not by itself a reason to reject, especially for ambitious work honest about its limits; but strength on one dimension does not offset being very weak on others. Do not penalize small-scale work for lacking large compute. ### 4. Questions To Authors Type: list of points. Questions for the rebuttal whose answers could change your assessment. ### 5. Rating Type: score, 1–10. Overall rating. - **10**: Top 5% of accepted papers, seminal paper - **9**: Top 15% of accepted papers, strong accept - **8**: Top 50% of accepted papers, clear accept - **7**: Good paper, accept - **6**: Marginally above acceptance threshold - **5**: Marginally below acceptance threshold - **4**: Ok but not good enough - rejection - **3**: Clear rejection - **2**: Strong rejection - **1**: Trivial or wrong ### 6. Confidence Type: score, 1–5. How certain you are about your evaluation. - **5**: The reviewer is absolutely certain that the evaluation is correct and very familiar with the relevant literature - **4**: The reviewer is confident but not absolutely certain that the evaluation is correct - **3**: The reviewer is fairly confident that the evaluation is correct - **2**: The reviewer is willing to defend the evaluation, but it is quite likely that the reviewer did not understand central parts of the paper - **1**: The reviewer's evaluation is an educated guess ### 7. Ethics Concerns Type: free text. "None", or the ethical concern that should be flagged for ethics review. ## Area chair meta-review COLM ACs make the initial decision, may dismiss clearly low-quality reviews, and discuss borderline cases with the PCs. Recommendation options: Accept · Reject ## COLM author statements 1. Optional ethics statement (up to one page, outside the page limit) 2. Optional reproducibility statement (up to one page) 3. LLM use that originated ideas, wrote content (incl. references), generated data or plots, or did evaluation disclosed 4. Anonymized: no acknowledgments or identifying links ## LLM policy COLM 2026 requires reviewers to disclose any LLM use, cosmetic or substantive; reviewers remain fully responsible for their reviews. Official policy: https://colm.cc/Conferences/2026/CallForPapers --- Simulate reviews of your own draft in this venue's form: https://reviewpaper.ai/new?venue=colm (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.