add 2026 author response guidelines

eringrant · eringrant · commit a208ba153e89 · 2026-03-23T22:15:09.000-07:00
diff --git a/docs/2026/Proceedings/Author response guidelines.md b/docs/2026/Proceedings/Author response guidelines.md
@@ -1,3 +1,165 @@
-# Author response guidelines
+# Author Response Guidelines
 
---8<-- "2026/coming-soon.md"
+--8<-- "2026/glossary-definitions.md"
+
+Thank you for submitting your work to the CCN Proceedings track.
+In this document, we outline the Proceedings review and decision processes that are
+relevant to authors of submissions.
+
+## OpenReview Console
+
+--8<-- "2026/openreview/console.md"
+
+<div style="text-align: center" markdown>
+
+[Go to your Author console on OpenReview](https://openreview.net/group?id=ccneuro.org/CCN/2026/Proceedings/Authors){
+.md-button .md-button--primary }
+
+</div>
+
+### Setting comment visibility
+
+--8<-- "2026/openreview/comment-visibility.md"
+
+![OpenReview screenshot](../../2025/assets/reviewer-interface.png)
+
+## Timeline
+
+| Period | Author responsibilities | Dates |
+| :--- | :--- | :--- |
+| Review |  | {{ review_period_2026 }} |
+| <span class="deadline">[Response](#response)</span> | <span class="deadline">Authors write rebuttals and optionally revise PDF.</span> | <span class="deadline">{{ author_response_period_2026 }}</span> |
+| <span class="deadline">[Discussion](#discussion)</span> | <span class="deadline">Authors engage with reviewers.</span> | <span class="deadline">{{ discussion_period_2026 }}</span> |
+| Meta-Review |  | {{ meta_review_period_2026 }} |
+| Decision[^decisions] |  | {{ final_decisions_period_2026 }} |
+
+[^decisions]: Proceedings decisions are related to but not exactly the same as
+    presentation format (poster) decisions at CCN 2026: **accepted** Proceedings papers
+    **will** receive a poster; Proceedings submissions that are not accepted will go
+    through another decision stage for the Extended Abstract track; all **accepted**
+    Extended Abstracts **will** receive a poster, and we expect to accept all on-topic
+    Extended Abstracts up to our venue capacity.
+    For more details, see the
+    [call for papers](https://2026.ccneuro.org/call-for-papers/).
+
+### Response
+
+{{ author_response_period_2026 }}
+
+#### Reviews
+
+Reviewers are instructed to submit reviews by {{ reviews_due_2026 }}, AoE. This is
+followed by an emergency period of several days in which missing reviews are completed
+by emergency reviewers so that each Proceedings submission receives at least 3 quality
+reviews. Reviews are released to authors on **{{ reviews_released_2026 }}**.
+
+#### Review content
+
+Reviewers were asked to evaluate submissions according to their **interest**,
+**soundness**, **clarity**, and **confidence of expertise**, and to provide comments on
+their evaluations.
+
+--8<-- "2026/reviewers/review-form.md"
+
+#### Text responses
+
+Once reviews are released, you are invited to write an author response (AKA a
+"Rebuttal") to **each individual review**. To do this, you can write a response under
+each official review by clicking the button "**Rebuttal**" in the lower right corner of
+each review.
+
+![OpenReview screenshot: Add Rebuttal](../../2025/assets/author-response-1.png)
+
+The deadline for submitting the text component of your author response is
+**{{ author_response_due_2026 }}**. You must submit a text response before this date to
+participate in any follow-up discussion during the author-reviewer
+[discussion period](#discussion) that immediately follows.
+
+Each of these text responses has a 5000 character limit.
+Please ensure your responses are productive and respectful of the reviewer's opinions
+and time, and focus your response on critical concerns raised by the reviewers.
+You are not required to respond to every point in a review, and should focus on those
+that are critical for a reviewer's evaluation (see "Review content" above).
+
+All reviewers for each submission will be able to see these responses, so it is fine to
+point a reviewer to a response written for a different review.
+For example, if two reviewers ask the same question, you can answer it in the response
+to one reviewer, and then ask the other reviewer to find the answer there.
+
+#### PDF revision
+
+In addition to the text response, authors are allowed, but not required, to submit a
+**revised PDF** based on reviewer comments.
+To do this, you can edit the submission PDF by clicking the button "**Edit**" then
+selecting "**Author Response Revision**". Note, however, that you should not add new
+results, unless directly requested by a reviewer (e.g., minor additional statistical
+analyses). Revisions can be uploaded as soon as reviews are released.
+The deadline for revising the submission PDF is the same as the text responses,
+**{{ author_response_due_2026 }}**.
+
+![OpenReview screenshot: Edit Submission](../../2025/assets/author-response-2.png)
+
+The 8-page limit still applies to the main text at this stage.
+If a reviewer requested methodological details for reproducibility that are difficult to
+fit into the main text, you may add these details to the supplement, and add a pointer
+in the main text. It can be helpful for reviewers to understand your revisions if you
+color added and/or revised text in blue or another non-black color (though you should
+also make sure that reviewers know how to interpret this style by explaining this in
+your text response).
+
+### Discussion
+
+{{ discussion_period_2026 }}
+
+Reviewers are required to respond to author responses by submitting a "Rebuttal
+Response". Reviewers are encouraged to respond immediately after
+{{ author_response_due_2026 }} to facilitate timely interaction between authors and
+reviewers. Authors are allowed to make one more concise response to reviewer comments,
+but no longer update the paper PDF. The author-reviewer discussion closes on
+**{{ discussion_due_2026 }}**.
+
+This post-review discussion period is meant as a wrap-up to any discussion between the
+authors and the reviewers, and to give reviewers the option to update their reviews and
+assessments based on author responses.
+
+## Decisions
+
+### Meta-reviews
+
+Based on the reviews and the author rebuttals, ACs and SACs will write meta-reviews and
+recommend Proceedings paper rejection or acceptance, which will receive final review
+from the TPC and the PC. Decisions and meta-reviews will be released on
+**{{ proceedings_decisions_2026 }}**.
+
+Furthermore, a small subset of accepted papers will be invited to present a Contributed
+Talk, which will be announced in June.
+
+### Invitations to Extended Abstracts
+
+Authors of Proceedings submissions that are not accepted will be invited to convert
+their Proceedings submission to an Extended Abstract submission.
+Instructions for this will be provided at a later stage.
+There is no need to submit an Extended Abstract version of your Proceedings submission
+to the Extended Abstracts track.
+
+### Public reviews
+
+Anonymized reviews and discussion will be made public on OpenReview for accepted papers
+only.
+
+## Policies
+
+### Presenter policy
+
+--8<-- "2026/policies/presenter-policy-intro.md"
+
+--8<-- "2026/policies/presenter-policy-cross-track.md"
+
+### Conduct
+
+--8<-- "2026/policies/conduct.md"
+
+Unprofessional or unethical behavior during the review and discussion process should be
+flagged to the AC via a private comment.
+
+--8<-- "2026/contact-info.md"
diff --git a/docs/2026/Proceedings/Reviewer guidelines.md b/docs/2026/Proceedings/Reviewer guidelines.md
@@ -76,6 +76,12 @@ submit all assigned reviews by the author response stage, the relevant submissio
 be desk-rejected and may not be considered for Contributed Talk when converted to the
 Extended Abstracts track.
 
+#### Review content
+
+Reviewers are asked to evaluate submissions according to their **interest**,
+**soundness**, **clarity**, and **confidence of expertise**, and to provide comments on
+their evaluations.
+
 --8<-- "2026/reviewers/review-form.md"
 
 #### Things to flag
diff --git a/docs/macros/main.py b/docs/macros/main.py
@@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ def define_env(env):
     env.variables["author_response_period_2026"] = "Mar 26 - Apr 6, 2026"
     env.variables["author_response_due_2026"] = "Apr 6, 2026"
     env.variables["discussion_period_2026"] = "Apr 7 - Apr 13, 2026"
+    env.variables["discussion_due_2026"] = "Apr 13, 2026"
     env.variables["poster_acceptances_2026"] = "Apr 20, 2026"
     env.variables["meta_review_period_2026"] = "Apr 14 - Apr 27, 2026"
     env.variables["meta_review_due_2026"] = "Apr 27, 2026"
diff --git a/snippets/2026/policies/presenter-policy-cross-track.md b/snippets/2026/policies/presenter-policy-cross-track.md
@@ -1,17 +1,12 @@
 Since CCN 2026 has two tracks with separate timelines, we allow Presenters to
 submit a contribution to each track.
-If both contributions are accepted for presentation at CCN 2026 (*), the
+If both contributions are accepted for presentation at CCN 2026[^cross-track], the
 Presenter will be asked to select one of their contributions for presentation
 and withdraw the other.
 This selection must be made between {{ presenter_selection_period_2026 }}, after
 decisions are announced for all tracks.
 
-(*) This can occur if a Presenter has both a Proceedings paper and an Extended
-Abstract accepted, or a Presenter's Proceedings paper is invited to the
-Extended Abstract track after they have submitted a contribution directly to
-the Extended Abstracts track. In these cases, the Presenter can choose which
-contribution to present, or identify an alternative Presenter for one of the
-works.
+[^cross-track]: This can occur if a Presenter has both a Proceedings paper and an Extended Abstract accepted, or a Presenter's Proceedings paper is invited to the Extended Abstract track after they have submitted a contribution directly to the Extended Abstracts track. In these cases, the Presenter can choose which contribution to present, or identify an alternative Presenter for one of the works.
 
 However, we do not allow multiple submissions from a single Presenter to the
 Extended Abstracts track.
diff --git a/snippets/2026/policies/presenter-policy-intro.md b/snippets/2026/policies/presenter-policy-intro.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+CCN 2026 maintains the historical policy that a given "Presenter" (the presenting author
+as identified on OpenReview) can **present only a single contribution** at CCN.
diff --git a/snippets/2026/reviewers/review-criteria.md b/snippets/2026/reviewers/review-criteria.md
@@ -1,25 +1,25 @@
 **Interest:** To what extent is this work relevant to the CCN community, in terms of
 **scope** and **impact**?
 
-- 5: Landmark (contributions have transformative implications for multiple
+- 5: **Landmark** (contributions have transformative implications for multiple
   disciplines at CCN)
-- 4: Broad (contributions have significant implications with interdisciplinary
+- 4: **Broad** (contributions have significant implications with interdisciplinary
   relevance)
-- 3: Disciplinary (contributions have significant implications within one of AI,
+- 3: **Disciplinary** (contributions have significant implications within one of AI,
   cognitive science, or neuroscience)
-- 2: Incremental (contributions have minor implications for one of AI, cognitive
+- 2: **Incremental** (contributions have minor implications for one of AI, cognitive
   science, or neuroscience)
-- 1: Limited (contributions are out of scope for CCN, or are covered by prior work)
+- 1: **Limited** (contributions are out of scope for CCN, or are covered by prior work)
 
 **Soundness:** Does the evidence support the claimed contributions? Are the right
 methods used?
 
-- 5: Exceptional (establishes new standards of evidence for a field)
-- 4: Compelling (rigorous, *e.g.*, convergent evidence from multiple methodologies)
-- 3: Convincing (appropriate methodology and evidence consistent with claims)
-- 2: Incomplete (evidence only partially supports the claims, or more appropriate
+- 5: **Exceptional** (establishes new standards of evidence for a field)
+- 4: **Compelling** (rigorous, *e.g.*, convergent evidence from multiple methodologies)
+- 3: **Convincing** (appropriate methodology and evidence consistent with claims)
+- 2: **Incomplete** (evidence only partially supports the claims, or more appropriate
   methods are *not* used)
-- 1: Inadequate (lacks critical evidence, or has methodological flaws that undermine
+- 1: **Inadequate** (lacks critical evidence, or has methodological flaws that undermine
   conclusions)
 
 **Clarity:** Are the contributions clearly communicated?
diff --git a/snippets/2026/reviewers/review-form.md b/snippets/2026/reviewers/review-form.md
@@ -1,15 +1,12 @@
-#### Review form
-
-???+ abstract "Your review should include the following components."
+??? abstract "Structure of a CCN Proceedings review"
 
     **Title**
 
-    Briefly summarize your perspective on this manuscript.
+    A brief summary of the reviewer's perspective on the manuscript.
 
     **Ratings**
 
-    Rate the submission on the following criteria (details on the scales in the review
-    form):
+    Submissions are rated on the following criteria:
 
     *Interest:* To what extent is this work relevant to the CCN community, in terms of
     **scope** and **impact**?
@@ -63,21 +60,20 @@
 
     **Comments**
 
-    *10,000 characters.* Please explain your evaluations of the interest, soundness, and
-    clarity of this submission and provide any additional comments to the authors. You can
-    incorporate Markdown and LaTeX into the comments section.
+    *10,000 characters.* Reviewers explain their evaluations of the interest, soundness,
+    and clarity of the submission and provide additional comments to the authors. Reviewers
+    can incorporate Markdown and LaTeX into the comments section.
 
-    Your comments should:
+    Comments should:
 
     - Summarize the manuscript's claims and approach
 
     - List the strengths and limitations of the manuscript
 
-    - Cover the dimensions above (Interest, Soundness, Clarity) and motivate your rating.
-      It can also be helpful to explain why you don't believe a higher or lower rating is
-      appropriate
+    - Cover the dimensions above (Interest, Soundness, Clarity) and motivate the rating.
+      It can also be helpful to explain why a higher or lower rating is not appropriate
 
-    - Note any questions you have for the authors, or requests to clarify something, that
+    - Note any questions for the authors, or requests to clarify something, that
       could be helpful for the authors when presenting the work at CCN
 
     - Make suggestions for improvement of the work
diff --git a/zensical.toml b/zensical.toml
@@ -336,6 +336,9 @@ toggle.name = "Switch to light mode"
 # Enable markdown inside HTML blocks
 [project.markdown_extensions.md_in_html]
 
+# Enable footnotes
+[project.markdown_extensions.footnotes]
+
 # Enable admonitions
 [project.markdown_extensions.admonition]
 [project.markdown_extensions.pymdownx.details]

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
`@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@`
	`1`	`+CCN 2026 maintains the historical policy that a given "Presenter" (the presenting author`
	`2`	`+as identified on OpenReview) can present only a single contribution at CCN.`