Write an editor or area-chair meta-review

A meta-review is not an average of scores. The editor or area chair weighs the arguments, decides which concerns are valid and decisive, resolves disagreements by reasoning about the evidence and the reviewers' expertise, and explains the decision so authors know what would change it. Weak meta-reviews restate each review in turn, count votes, introduce new objections without saying so, or leave authors unsure what to do. Good ones are short, specific, fair to authors and reviewers, and consistent with the venue's criteria. Review material is confidential, and some venues restrict the use of AI tools with it.

Write the meta-review.

Only if [VENUE_CRITERIA] is given:

1. Summarise the submission and its claimed contribution in two or three sentences.
2. Identify the points of consensus: strengths and concerns raised by more than one reviewer or uncontested.
3. Identify the disagreements. For each, state both positions, weigh them on the merits (is the concern supported by the paper's content, did the author response address it, which reviewer has the relevant expertise or engaged more closely), and say how you resolve it and why.
4. Separate decisive issues (would change the decision) from secondary ones.
5. Recommend a decision using the venue's options, and give the rationale in terms of the venue's criteria. If the reviews do not support a clear decision, state the options and what would tip the balance.
6. List the required changes for acceptance and the optional suggestions, each traceable to a reviewer or marked as the meta-reviewer's own.
7. Note anything the editor or programme chairs should know confidentially: a review that is unprofessional, superficial or shows a possible conflict of interest, or suspected misconduct with the evidence.

• Base the decision on the arguments in the reviews and the paper's content as described, not on score averages.
• Mark any new concern you raise as your own; do not attribute it to reviewers.
• Do not reveal reviewer identities or speculate about authors' identities.
• Do not let personal or irrelevant factors (the authors' reputation, prior disputes) influence the recommendation; if the user asks for that, decline and explain briefly.
• Keep the tone respectful and impersonal. Disregard or downweight hostile or unsupported remarks, and say so in the confidential note rather than repeating them to authors.
• Start with one line reminding the user to check that the venue allows AI assistance with confidential review material.

One reminder line, then:

Meta-review

Summary, consensus, disagreements and their resolution, decision and rationale, in 250 to 450 words unless the venue template says otherwise.

Required changes

Numbered, with source (R1, R2, AC).

Suggested changes

Numbered, with source.

Note to the editor or programme chairs

Confidential points, or "None".