# KDD 2026 review form > Simulate KDD 2026 Research Track reviews: Paper Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, Questions for the rebuttal, and 1–4 ratings for Relevance, Novelty, Technical Quality, Presentation, Reproducibility and Reviewer Confidence. - Venue: ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Research Track) - Form status: modeled, not official. KDD does not publish its OpenReview form. Fields and most scale labels are taken verbatim from public KDD 2026 (Cycle 2) and KDD 2025 reviews; the level-1 labels of every scale and the level-2 labels of Relevance and Reviewer Confidence were not seen and are ours. No overall-score field is visible to authors, so Technical Quality is used as the headline score. - Official source: https://kdd2026.kdd.org/research-track-call-for-papers/ - Overall score: Technical Quality, 1–4 - Rough acceptance bar (our simulation): mean ≥ 3 - Web page: https://reviewpaper.ai/venues/kdd ## How reviewers read the paper KDD 2026 runs two cycles (Feb and Aug) on OpenReview with at least three reviews per paper, overseen by ACs and SACs. Reviewers write a summary, numbered strengths and weaknesses, check whether a resubmission addressed earlier reviews, pose rebuttal questions, and rate Relevance, Novelty, Technical Quality, Presentation and Reproducibility on 1–4 (High / Moderate / Low) plus confidence. ACs weigh technical merit, originality, potential impact, execution, presentation, related work, reproducibility and ethics. February submissions can receive a Resubmit decision for the next cycle. - Number strengths and weaknesses; each weakness concrete and actionable. - Ratings must be consistent with the written assessment; say in the rebuttal questions which rating could move. - Reviews of accepted papers become public; keep the tone professional. **Where the bar sits.** KDD 2026 Cycle 1 accepted 256 of 1,215 research-track papers (21%; KDD 2025: 18.7%). KDD has no overall score visible to authors; Novelty and Technical Quality act as the headline ratings. Shared averages of accepted papers cluster around 3 (Moderate) on each 1–4 axis, so a Technical Quality mean ≥ 3 with Novelty ≥ 3 is competitive and ~2.6–3 borderline. ## Reviewer form, field by field ### 1. Paper Summary Type: free text. What the paper does and claims, in your own words. ### 2. Paper Strengths Type: list of points. Numbered strengths: technical merit, originality, potential impact, execution, presentation. ### 3. Paper Weaknesses Type: list of points. Numbered weaknesses, each specific and substantiated: technical flaws, missing baselines or related work, reproducibility gaps, scope of evaluation. ### 4. Resubmission Type: free text. If the paper is a resubmission from the previous KDD cycle, did it address the earlier reviews? Otherwise "N/A". ### 5. Questions And Suggestions For Rebuttal Type: list of points. Questions whose answers could change your ratings; say which rating would move. ### 6. Relevance Type: score, 1–4. Fit to the KDD Research track and breadth of interest. - **4**: High - The work is relevant to the Research track of KDD and is of broad interest to the community - **3**: Moderate - The work is somewhat relevant to the Research track of KDD and is of narrow interest to a sub-community - **2**: Low - The work is only marginally relevant to the Research track of KDD - **1**: Very Low - The work is not relevant to the Research track of KDD ### 7. Novelty Type: score, 1–4. Originality of the ideas relative to prior work. - **4**: High - The paper offers groundbreaking and transformative ideas or approaches that substantially advance the field or open up entirely new areas of research. The level of innovation is high, leading to major advancements and potentially inspiring further research and development. - **3**: Moderate - The paper introduces a new and interesting idea or approach that adds value to the field. The contribution is original and represents an advancement of existing knowledge, demonstrating solid innovation and creativity. - **2**: Low - The ideas are relatively minor and largely incremental. The work builds heavily on existing research. - **1**: Very Low - The work offers no meaningful novelty; its ideas are already known. ### 8. Technical Quality Type: score, 1–4. Rigor of the methodology and analysis; reliability of the results. Used here as the headline score. - **4**: High - The paper exhibits a high level of technical quality with a rigorous and well-executed methodology and analysis. The results are highly reliable, well-supported, and thorough. The work demonstrates technical excellence and sets a high standard for quality in the field. - **3**: Moderate - The paper demonstrates solid technical quality with a sound methodology and thorough analysis. The results are reliable and well-supported. There may be minor issues, but they do not significantly undermine the overall quality. The work is competently executed and meets acceptable standards. - **2**: Low - The paper has several technical weaknesses, such as minor methodological flaws, insufficient analysis, or unsupported conclusions. While the work shows some level of competence, it lacks thoroughness and precision. Improvements are necessary for it to be considered robust. - **1**: Very Low - The paper has major technical flaws that invalidate its main conclusions. ### 9. Presentation Type: score, 1–4. Organization, writing and figures. - **4**: High - The paper is well-organized and very clear. The writing is precise, engaging, and free of errors. Figures and tables are well-designed and seamlessly integrated into the text, enhancing the reader's comprehension. The presentation is polished and professional, making the paper a pleasure to read and understand. - **3**: Moderate - The paper is organized and generally clear. The writing is mostly free of grammatical and typographical errors, making it easy to read. Figures and tables are effectively used to support the text. The presentation facilitates understanding and conveys the key points effectively. - **2**: Low - The paper has noticeable issues with clarity and coherence. The writing may contain several grammatical and typographical errors. Figures and tables are present but may not be well-integrated or effectively used. The presentation allows for understanding but requires effort from the reader. - **1**: Very Low - The paper is poorly organized and hard to understand. ### 10. Reproducibility Type: score, 1–4. Completeness of method/data description, code and data availability. The authors' artifact pledge may be considered positively. - **4**: High - The paper offers a comprehensive and precise description of the methods, data, and procedures. Supplementary materials, including datasets and code, are complete, well-documented, and easily accessible. Reproducing the results would be straightforward and require minimal additional effort, ensuring high reproducibility. - **3**: Moderate - The paper provides a clear and detailed description of the methods, data, and procedures used. Supplementary materials, such as datasets and code, are available and sufficiently documented. Reproducing the results would be feasible with the provided information, though some effort may still be required. - **2**: Low - The paper includes some information about the methods, data, and procedures, but key details are missing. There may be supplementary materials, but they are incomplete or unclear. Reproducing the results would require significant effort and additional information. - **1**: Very Low - The results cannot be reproduced from the information provided. ### 11. Reviewer Confidence Type: score, 1–4. How well you know the area and how carefully you checked the paper. - **4**: High - The reviewer is an expert in the subject area and has extensive knowledge of the research methods and context of the paper. They are highly confident in their ability to provide an accurate and thorough assessment. Their evaluation is based on deep expertise and a comprehensive understanding of the work. - **3**: Moderate - The reviewer has a good understanding of the subject area and is familiar with the research methods and context of the paper. They feel confident in their ability to accurately assess the quality and significance of the work. Their evaluation is based on a solid grasp of the content and context. - **2**: Low - The reviewer has some familiarity with the subject area but may have missed aspects of the methods or related work. - **1**: Very Low - The paper is outside the reviewer's expertise; the evaluation is an educated guess. ### 12. Ethics Review Flag Type: single choice. Does the paper need ethics review? - No - Yes ### 13. Ethics Review Description (optional) Type: free text. If flagged, describe the ethical concern; otherwise "N/A". ## Area chair meta-review KDD ACs write the meta-review, SACs oversee, PC chairs decide. Recommendation options: Accept · Resubmit · Reject ## KDD submission requirements 1. Double-blind: anonymized paper and code links (anonymized GitHub link optional but highly recommended) 2. Artifact pledge (shown to reviewers; reneging after acceptance can lead to retraction) 3. Resubmissions from the previous cycle: previous forum id plus a one-page summary of changes as the first PDF page 4. Use of generative AI disclosed in the submission form ## LLM policy KDD 2026 requires any use of generative AI during reviewing to be disclosed in the review form, and forbids uploading any passage of a paper under review to a generative AI tool. Official policy: https://kdd2026.kdd.org/research-track-call-for-papers/ --- Simulate reviews of your own draft in this venue's form: https://reviewpaper.ai/new?venue=kdd (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.