Reviewing papers is a core academic role and as such it needs to be carried out to the highest ethical standards. Due to some different expectations in different communities and over time. the WEIS 2025 Program Chairs have prepared this statement to inform PC members, and anyone else requested to review submissions to the WEIS 2025 event of their expectations, as well as making our rules clear to authors of submissions and any other interested parties.

General Conduct of Program Chairs, Program Committee and Additional Reviewers

The communications among Program Chairs, Program Committee Members and Additional Reviewers are required to conform to the WEIS 2025 code of conduct. Complaints about another Program Committee member's or additional reviewer's conduct/communications can be made to the Program Chairs. Complaints about the conduct/communications of either or both of the Program Co-Chairs can be made to the General Chair of WEIS 2025.

In general, communications should be polite, timely and professional. Criticism of the academic contents and standards of submissions or of reviews is welcome but must always be pertinent and related to the contents and never ad hominem.

Detailed Policies

Double Anonymous Process

The workshop uses a double-anonymous process. Reviewers should not know who the author(s) of a submitted paper is/are, nor should they try to find out. The paper's contents should stand on their own and be reviewed the same no matter who wrote it or where they are based. Similarly, authors should not know who the individual reviewers of their paper(s) are, neither during nor after the review process. Reviewers should try to make sure their reviews do not reveal their identity, nor should they verbally or in writing reveal their identity to authors afterwards. This includes not revealing the names of other reviewers of the paper should you know that via the reviewing process.

Community acknowledgement of reviewing work is gained by being listed by the workshop as a member of the Program Committee or as a secondary reviewer, not by linking a reviewer to specific reviews. If reviewers become aware of the identity of the authors of a submitted piece before the reviewing process is complete (e.g., before they do their review or before any discussions with other reviewers or the Program Chairs), they should inform the Program Chairs. The Program Chairs may allow an already submitted review (from before the reviewer became aware of the author(s) name) to stand but preclude them from being further involved in discussion or decision-making regarding that submission if they feel there is any possibility of bias or conflict of interest.

Confidentiality of Submissions

Submissions to the workshop are confidential and must only be viewed for the purpose of the review. They must not be shared with anyone outside the reviewing process. In particular, the contents should not be used as a source by reviewers until and unless the work has been shared publicly, either as part of the informal proceedings of the workshop or by the authors in another format (as a pre-print, e.g. on ArXiv or SSRN, or as a published article). Once the work has been made more widely available, of course, it can be treated as part of the academic literature and cited/used as per normal practice. However, reviewers should be careful to obtain the shared version and not rely on their review copy which might contain preliminary versions of the work which was not included in the public version for some reason.

Non-Confidentiality of Reviews

Reviewers should note that authors are not bound to keep the contents of reviews shared with them confidential. They may use those reviews as sources to help them improve their work. They may even publish the reviews in order to criticise the contents of the reviews. They are expected to abide by the WEIS 2025 Code of Conduct in how they do so, but the workshop organisers have limited opportunity to enforce that code beyond activity related to the workshop. Review contents which are to be shared with authors will be clearly marked for/by reviewers and will be separate from the confidential discussions with Program Chairs or other reviewers.

Secondary Reviewers

Papers will be allocated for review by the Program Chairs in consultation with individual members of the Program Committee. Reviews must be carried out by the named reviewer and not sub-contracted to a junior researcher or student. If you feel you are unable to undertake a review yourself but know someone not on the Program Committee who would make a suitable reviewer, please make that suggestion to the Program Chairs. People will be asked to review on this basis after being made aware of this ethics statement. Such reviewers will be given credit by the conference as additional reviewers.

Important note: If you wish to use reviewing for the workshop as a training exercise for junior researchers or students, this must be cleared with the Program Chairs. In this circumstance a jointly written review can be submitted by the Program Committee member if they feel the contribution of the junior researcher/student makes useful points, and they will then be named as additional reviewers.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should actively avoid conflicts of interest in the reviewing process. If they become aware of any conflict during the process they should inform the Program Chairs as soon as possible and withdraw from the reviewing of the relevant pieces.