AoIR 2026 Submission Review FAQ

Thank you for your submission to the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) 2026 Conference. We recognize that receiving conference reviews can raise questions, especially when decisions are difficult or unexpected. This FAQ addresses some of the most common concerns we hear from authors and provides additional context about the review process.

If your question is not answered here, we welcome constructive feedback and suggestions for improving future review cycles which you can submit to our conference team using this feedback form.

• Why was my submission not accepted? The reviewers misunderstood my work.

Peer review can only be as strong as the expertise and participation of the scholarly community. Occasionally, reviewers may misunderstand aspects of a submission or evaluate it differently than the authors anticipated.

One of the most effective ways to improve the review process is through active participation. We encourage all submitters to volunteer as reviewers and to accurately indicate their areas of expertise during the submission process. This helps us better match submissions with qualified reviewers and strengthens the quality of reviews across the conference.

Looking ahead: Authors will be required to select areas of expertise during the submission process, and these selections must be updated each year to ensure reviewer profiles remain current.

• My reviews were very positive. Why wasn't my submission accepted?

You likely submitted strong work.

AoIR continues to grow, and conference acceptance has become increasingly competitive. Unfortunately, there are more high-quality submissions than can be accommodated in the conference program.

For AoIR 2026, the acceptance threshold was particularly high, and the conference received more than 1,000 submissions. As a result, some submissions that received enthusiastic reviews were still not able to be included in the final program.

• One review was much lower than the others. How are outlier reviews handled?

Each submission is assigned to reviewers based on a combination of random assignment, topic areas, and stated expertise.

The review committee—which includes members of the local organizing team and the AoIR Executive Committee—examines cases where reviews differ substantially. When necessary, additional reviewers may be assigned and unusual situations are reviewed more closely. These meta-reviewers do not contribute additional scores.

Importantly, a large proportion of submissions receive reviews with significant variation. Automatically discarding outlier reviews would shift decision-making power away from anonymous peer review and toward a smaller group of committee members. AoIR seeks to preserve a broadly peer-reviewed process rather than move toward a curated symposium model.

• The third reviewer gave us a lower score. Why was a third reviewer assigned?

Reviewer numbering does not necessarily reflect the order in which reviews were completed.

In many cases, a third reviewer is assigned specifically because the first two reviews differ substantially. This means the third review may have been requested to help resolve disagreement between the initial reviewers.

It is therefore not always accurate to assume that a third review caused a submission to be rejected. In some cases, the additional review may have improved the overall average score, even if the final result was still below the acceptance threshold.

• I received a review that was unhelpful, incomplete, or unprofessional. What should I do?

We recognize that receiving a poor-quality review can be frustrating.

The conference team attempts to identify reviews that are abusive, hostile, or clearly demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the subject matter. If you believe a review falls into one of these categories, we encourage you to let us know.

While we strive for every review to reflect the same care, effort, and expertise that authors bring to their submissions, the quality of peer review ultimately depends on community participation. Volunteering as a reviewer remains one of the most direct ways to strengthen the process.

• How can I provide feedback about the review process?

AoIR's interdisciplinary nature is one of its greatest strengths, but it also presents challenges as scholars from different disciplines, traditions, and methodological backgrounds evaluate one another's work. We continue to explore ways to improve the process and better account for these differences.

We welcome constructive feedback and especially value concrete, actionable suggestions for improvement.

Members are also encouraged to participate in the Annual General Meeting (AGM) during the conference, where these issues can be discussed with the broader AoIR community. If you have suggestions that are not addressed in this FAQ, please share them with us through the designated feedback form.

• Still Have Questions?

If your concern is not addressed above, please contact the conference team through this feedback form. We appreciate your contribution to the AoIR community and your help in improving the conference review process.