Wednesday 7 October 2026 · 09:00 – 16:30 · EC1 29, Sir Frank Whittle Building
Coventry University CDT in AI Annual Conference 2026Artificial Intelligence across Domains

Abstracts close 18 September
Friday 18 September 2026

Submit an abstract Register to attend

Reviewers

Call for reviewers

Peer review keeps the programme strong and is valuable experience for early-career researchers. Reviewing runs from 19 to 24 September 2026.

How it works

We invite CDT in AI students, supervisors and staff to review abstracts submitted to the conference. Each reviewer receives a small number of abstracts matched to their expertise, and reviews are completed on EasyChair.

  1. 18 SEPSubmissions close and abstracts are allocated to reviewers
  2. 24 SEPReviews due on EasyChair
  3. 25 SEPCommittee decisions and author notification

To volunteer, answer “Yes” to “Are you happy to review papers?” on the registration form, or email the organising committee.

Volunteer via the registration form

What reviewers commit to

Confidentiality
Submissions are confidential. Do not share, discuss or reuse their content outside the review process.
Conflicts of interest
Decline any abstract by your own supervisor, supervisee, close collaborator or research group, or where you cannot be impartial. Tell the committee and it will be reassigned.
Constructive tone
Write the review you would want to receive. Be specific, be respectful and suggest improvements. Many authors are first-year researchers.
Timeliness
Return reviews by the deadline so authors can be notified on 25 September.
Your own judgement
Reviews should reflect your own expert reading of the abstract. Do not share submissions with third parties or external tools.

Review criteria

Score each 1 – 5

  1. 01

    Relevance to the conference and topic

    Does the work engage with artificial intelligence, and does it fit the topic selected by the author?

  2. 02

    Clarity of the abstract

    Are the problem, approach and contribution stated clearly within the 250-word limit? Could a researcher from another discipline follow it?

  3. 03

    Methodological rigour

    Is the method appropriate and described adequately for its stage? For early work, is the plan sound and are the claims proportionate?

  4. 04

    Originality and contribution

    Does the work offer something new: a method, an application, a finding, a critical perspective or a new interdisciplinary link?

  5. 05

    Impact and responsible practice

    Is the potential academic, industrial or societal impact articulated? Are ethical, governance or bias considerations acknowledged where relevant?

Scoring scale

5
Excellent, no concerns
4
Good, minor issues
3
Acceptable, some weaknesses
2
Weak, significant concerns
1
Poor, does not meet the criterion

Overall recommendation

Accept as paper presentation
Strong, mature work suited to a 20-minute talk
Accept as lightning talk
Clear, focused idea or early-stage work suited to 5 minutes
Accept as poster
Suitable for discussion at the poster exhibition
Reject
Out of scope or does not meet the minimum standard; explain why

Written comments

Give two or three sentences for the authors: what is strong, what would most improve the work, and any format recommendation. Add a separate confidential note for the committee if needed. The committee makes final decisions on format and session allocation.