Call for Papers

Peer review

Every submission to AI|APE 2027 is peer reviewed. Reviewing is carried out by the international Scientific Committee, supplemented by external experts where a submission calls for specialist knowledge. Reviews are handled in OpenConf and the review record is retained by the Program Chairs.

• Review model Double-blind
• Reviewers per paper 3 (minimum 2)
• Reviewer pool Scientific Committee
• Decisions Program Chairs
• Platform OpenConf

Two-stage process

Stage 1, abstracts. Each extended abstract is read by at least two members of the Scientific Committee, who assess fit with the conference scope, originality and feasibility. The Program Chairs take the decision and notify authors on the abstract acceptance date. Acceptance at this stage is an invitation to submit a full paper; it does not guarantee acceptance of that paper.

Stage 2, full papers. Full and poster papers are reviewed double-blind: authors submit anonymised manuscripts, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Each paper goes to three independent reviewers, and never fewer than two. Reviewers submit scores and written comments. Where reviews diverge, the Program Chairs commission a further review before deciding. Authors receive the full reviews together with the notification of acceptance.

Papers accepted subject to revision are checked by the Program Chairs against the reviewers' requests before the camera-ready version enters the proceedings.

Criteria

Reviewers assess originality of the contribution, soundness of method, relevance to the conference tracks, engagement with prior work, and clarity of presentation. Where a contribution rests on data, code or a model, reviewers also weigh whether the account is complete enough for others to build on.

Conflicts of interest

A submission is never assigned to a reviewer from the same institution as any author, to a co-author from the past three years, or to anyone in a current or former supervisory relationship with an author. Chairs and committee members may submit to the conference; when they do, another chair handles the submission, and the person concerned has no access to its reviews, its discussion or its decision.

Confidentiality and research integrity

Submissions and reviews are confidential. Reviewers may not circulate a manuscript, use its content before publication, or upload it to third-party services, including generative AI tools. Submitted work must be original and must not be under review elsewhere. Plagiarism, undisclosed duplicate submission or fabricated results lead to rejection at any stage, including withdrawal after acceptance.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision in writing to the Program Chairs within 14 days of notification, addressing the substance of the reviews. The Chairs may seek an additional independent review before responding. Their decision on an appeal is final.

Submission and acceptance figures are published in the proceedings front matter of each edition.