The ICRA Conference Editorial Board (CEB) structure is: one Editor-in-Chief, approximately 24 Editors, approximately 450 Associate Editors (AEs), and several thousand Reviewers. Each paper to be reviewed will be assigned to one Editor and to one of the AEs that that Editor supervises. The AE will be responsible for obtaining a minimum of two high quality reviews for each paper they handle, and for preparing an AE recommendation that explains the review result. The Editors will be responsible for reviewing and endorsing the work done by the AEs on the papers for which they are responsible. The task of the Reviewers is to provide high-quality assessments of each individual paper assigned to them. These include statements about their own confidence, different criteria for the papers, a potential confidential statement to the CEB as well as a detailed review describing the contribution of paper and justifying the overall assessment.

The reviews will help to maintain the quality of ICRA. Each review is required to meet the 1,200 non-white character threshold, which has the purpose to provide useful and constructive feedback to the authors. Please refrain from filling the space with meaningless or repeated text. The reviewers should respect the time invested by the authors. They should not accept to review unless they are willing to at provide a meaningful review. The letter-grade system used for scoring papers is described below.

1. A Reviewer is deemed to have a conflict of interest in a submitted paper if he or she is a (co) author of the paper; or
2. one (or more) of the authors of the paper:
   1. is, or has been, a student or advisor of that person, or
   2. has co-authored a paper or has closely collaborated in a research project with that person in the previous five years, or
   3. is employed at the same institution (at the Department or Division level) as that person;
3. there are any other circumstances which may create an appearance that the person might have a bias in the evaluation of the paper.

If you suspect plagiarism or multiple submission (sometimes referred to as self-plagiarism), please notify your AE but proceed to review the paper in the standard way. Lack of citation to prior work should be noted in your review, but reviewers should not directly accuse authors of “plagiarism”. Other members of the CEB and, if necessary, IEEE committees, will determine if plagiarism has occured.

Information or content contained in or about a manuscript under review shall not be processed through an AI system. Doing so is considered a breach of confidentiality and as such is not permitted.