July 22: Papers/posters are submitted

July 25: Chairs assign papers/posters to the PC

July 27: Reviewers acknowledge assignments, or ask for swaps. 

July 31: Assignments are final; no more changes


August 18: "Primary" reviews are submitted

August 25: "Meta" reviews are submitted

August 27: PC meeting (chairs and meta-reviewers)

September 7: Notifications sent

October 1: Camera-readies due

October 7: Meta-reviewers sign off on camera-readies; no more changes


clarifications about reviewing assignments

Some of you had issues with your reviewing assignments, and we had a couple of mismatched submissions on our end. These should now be fixed and final, to the best of our knowledge. We're aware that some of you are still poorly matched in 1-2 cases. Please do your best with these reviews. Enough folks are assigned to each submission that this should all work out.

1 or Primary
All reviewers with a "1" next to their names are what HotCRP calls "primary reviewers". This means you are not doing a meta-review but a full review, and your review is due on the 18th of August.

M or Meta-Reviewer
An "M" next to your name means that you are a meta-reviewer. In this case, your views should really represent (mostly) the views of the primary reviewers (everyone who is a "1"). So we request that you wait until those are all in before finalizing your meta-review. You should ideally wait until the 18th of August, when the primaries are in.

Papers vs. Posters
In HotCRP, papers are colored purple and posters are yellow. Please keep in mind that posters are works-in-progress and meant to be lightly reviewed, while papers go through a rigorous peer-review process. Your standards should be different for each.

All papers that are accepted will be lightly or heavily shepherded. We'd like to ensure that the final versions are of the highest quality possible. The meta-reviewers will be the shepherds, barring exceptions. 


Things to look for

Contribution to ICTD: Is it relevant? Is it significant? Does it "talk" to the community?

Novelty: Is it novel, original work? Does it situate itself in prior work appropriately to communicate its novelty?

Rigor: Is the research solid? Was it designed and executed well? Are limitations spelled out clearly?

Presentation: Is the writing cohesive and understandable to a broad audience?



  • If you are a "primary" reviewer, please do a regular full paper/poster review. You have the power!
  • If you are a "meta" reviewer, please check that your review takes all "primary" reviews into consideration. 
  • Please review posters as "works in progress", but still upholding the above criteria.  
  • If what you're reviewing is a "paper" but you would prefer to see it as a "poster", please tell your meta-reviewer.
  • If you're unable to set aside epistemological differences with an assigned submission, please ask us to unassign you!
  • If you turn unresponsive to reviewing emails, we might reassign the submission. Please stay in touch! 
  • Do bear with us if we need to assign something to you outside of the above timeline. This will be our last resort!
  • Please be excellent to each other. Reviews must be respectful, kind, and constructive. No exceptions!



  • Please ignore the format as you review; formatting will be taken care of for the camera-readies. 
  • Please overlook poor English-related concerns. Poor writing is still a problem if it means that the paper does not communicate what it intends to. If some of the writing-related concerns can be shepherded away, we'll aim for that first. 
  • If the paper isn't anonymous, contact us (papers/posters chairs) right away.
  • More questions? Email us at and