The ICASSP 2026 review form, explained

How ICASSP reviewers read your paper

ICASSP papers get at least three reviews on a fixed list of criteria (importance, novelty, technical correctness, experimental validation, clarity, references), an overall evaluation and a detailed assessment shared with the authors. Extreme ratings carry meaning: "Irrelevant", "Has been done before", "Has major problems", "Insufficient validation" and "Does not cite relevant work" each imply rejection and must be justified. The optional rebuttal goes to area and track chairs, not the reviewers. Review is single-anonymous (authors are visible to reviewers).

• Write "the paper", not "you" or "the authors"; no sarcasm.
• Scores must match the comments; use the whole scale.
• "Done before" or "well known" must come with references.
• Ignore minor formatting problems; be specific about writing issues.
• Do not ask the authors to cite your own work unless directly relevant.

Where the bar sits. ICASSP 2026 accepted close to 4,800 of ~11,200 regular submissions (~43%). TPC chairs set the rate; no thresholds are published. On the 1–4 overall scale a mean of ≥ 2.75 (mostly Marginal accept or better) is a rough proxy for acceptance.

The reviewer form, field by field

In the order reviewers see it, with every score and its official wording.

1. 01

   Classify The Type Of Paper

   Single choice

   The amount of experimental validation expected depends on the paper type.

   • Theoretical
   • Algorithmic / methodological
   • Experimental / application
   • Dataset / resource
   • Survey / overview
2. 02

   Importance/Relevance

   Score · 1–4

   "Of limited interest" only if novelty, clarity and correctness are excellent; "Irrelevant" implies rejection and must be justified thoroughly.

   1. 4Of broad interest
   2. 3Of sufficient interest
   3. 2Of limited interest
   4. 1Irrelevant
3. 03

   Originality/Novelty

   Score · 1–4

   "Very original" opens new directions. "Has been done before" implies rejection and requires references.

   1. 4Very original
   2. 3Moderately original
   3. 2Minor originality
   4. 1Has been done before
4. 04

   Technical Correctness / Theoretical Development

   Score · 1–4

   List any errors found. "Has major problems" implies rejection.

   1. 4Definitely correct
   2. 3Probably correct
   3. 2Has minor errors
   4. 1Has major problems
5. 05

   Experimental Validation

   Score · 1–4

   Judge against the paper type. "Insufficient validation" implies rejection.

   Score	Meaning
   4	Sufficient validation / theoretical paper
   3	Limited but convincing
   2	Lacking in some respects
   1	Insufficient validation

6. 06

   Clarity Of Presentation

   Score · 1–4

   Be specific about writing problems; ignore minor formatting issues.

   Score	Meaning
   4	Very clear
   3	Clear enough
   2	Difficult to understand in places
   1	Very difficult to understand

7. 07

   Reference To Prior Work

   Score · 1–4

   "References missing": list them. "Does not cite relevant work" implies rejection; use only when the missing work is well known.

   Score	Meaning
   4	Excellent references
   3	References adequate
   2	References missing
   1	Does not cite relevant work

8. 08

   Overall Evaluation Of This Paper

   Score · 1–4

   Use the whole scale; marginal scores only when the paper really is in the middle. A 1 or 2 must be justified.

   1. 4Definite accept
   2. 3Marginal accept
   3. 2Marginal reject
   4. 1Definite reject
9. 09

   Award Quality

   Single choice

   Should the paper be considered for a best-paper award?

   • No
   • Yes
10. 10

    Strengths

    List of points

    Part of “Detailed Assessment Of The Paper” on the official form.

    Specific strengths, consistent with the scores above.

11. 11

    Weaknesses

    List of points

    Part of “Detailed Assessment Of The Paper” on the official form.

    Specific weaknesses and how to fix them; every low score must be explained here. Cite references for any "well known" claim.

12. 12

    Confidence

    Score · 1–4

    How confident you are in your evaluation of this paper.

    Score	Meaning
    4	Expert in the area
    3	Knowledgeable
    2	Some familiarity
    1	Not familiar with the area

Area chair meta-review

ICASSP meta-reviewers and area chairs recommend to track chairs; TPC chairs give final approval.

• Accept
• Reject

ICASSP submission requirements

Reviewers check these. Gaps are easy points to lose.

1. 4 pages of content plus an optional 5th page for references only
2. Generative-AI content disclosed in the acknowledgments (system and sections); grammar/editing use exempt
3. At most 9 submissions per author

Policy on LLMs in reviewing