Reviewer Mentorship Program has been completed.

The ML4H 2022 reviewer mentorship program is now closed. We would like to thank the following mentors for their excellent work and invaluable contribution.

  • Cristina Soguero Ruiz, Rey Juan Carlos University
  • Elena Sizikova, New York University
  • FabianFalck, University of Oxford
  • FarahShamout, NYU Abu Dhabi
  • Fethi Jarray, Gabes University
  • Giovanni Cinà, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Pacmed
  • Griffin Adams, Columbia University
  • HamedJavidi, Cleveland State University 
  • HazratAli, Hamad Bin Khalifa University Qatar
  • Jaan Altosaar, One Fact Foundation
  • Jan Witowski, NYU Grossman School of Medicine
  • LaynePrice, Amazon
  • Lovedeep Gondara, Simon Fraser University
  • Luca Romeo, University of Macerata
  • Niharika D'Souza, IBM Research 
  • Nimshi VenkatMeripo, Abridge AI Inc.
  • PankajPandey, IIT Gandhinagar
  • Prithwish Chakraborty, IBM Research
  • RutwikShah, UCSF
  • Sadid A. Hasan, Microsoft
  • StefanBonn, Institute of Medical Systems Biology, Center for Biomedical AI, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf
  • Subba ReddyOota, Inria, France
  • TakouaJendoubi, UCL
  • Vishwali Mhasawade,New York University
  • VrutangkumarShah, OHSU
  • Wenbin Zhang, Michigan Technological University

The full original call for the submission mentorship program is below.

Program Description

The purpose of the reviewer mentorship program is to train junior reviewers, foster new connections and relationships in the ML4H community, and ultimately improve the quality of the review process. The primary expectations of the program are that (1) mentors will provide feedback to mentees on drafts of their reviews and (2) mentees will update their reviews on the basis of that feedback.

If you are interested in participating in the reviewer mentorship program as a mentor/mentee please sign up using the following form

Deadline: August 20th AoE, 2022.



Mentees are expected to:

  1. Share the PDFs of their assigned papers with their mentors at the beginning of the review period.
  2. Share drafts of their reviews with the mentors at least one week prior to the end of the review period (by September 14) so that there is time for revision following discussion with their mentor.
  3. Meet with their mentor over a video/phone call to discuss the papers and receive feedback on their reviews.
  4. Submit your review to OpenReview by September 22, to allow the authors to provide responses to your review.
  5. Review author responses and other reviewer comments, participate in the reviewer discussion period, and update their reviews.
  6. Share final review versions with their mentor prior to submission.


Mentors are expected to:

  1. Read the papers and the reviews that their mentee shares with them.
  2. Provide thoughtful and constructive feedback on the reviews that their mentee(s) share(s) with them. The provided feedback is expected to assess the scientific validity of the reviews and whether they adhere to the reviewer guidelines and best practices.

Joint Expectations

Mentors and mentees are jointly expected to:

  1. Agree upon a date and time to meet and discuss the reviews on or before September 22. Both members are expected to be timely, thorough, and constructive in their reviews and feedback.
  2. Read and discuss the author feedback and other reviews before participating in the reviewer discussion period and submitting the final updated review.


  • Before the review period begins (September 5)
    • Mentors are matched with mentees, by September 1
    • (Optional) Mentors and mentees jointly set a time to have an introductory video call (or audio call if not possible) on or before September 5
  • During the review period (September 16 - October 20)
    • Beginning of review period (September 5): Mentee shares papers with mentor.
    • On or before September 14 : Mentee shares review drafts with mentor
    • September 17 - September 19: Scheduled call where mentor delivers review feedback
    • End of initial review period (September 22): Mentee incorporates mentor feedback and submits the initial review on the system
    • Reviewer discussion period (September 30 - October 5): Mentee reads and discusses author response with the mentor and other reviewers, and updates the review scores if applicable.
    • End of review period (October 14): Mentee submits revised reviews.
  • After the review period
    • Mentors and mentees respond to a survey on the effectiveness of the program

Structuring the feedback session

Mentors are free to structure the feedback session in whichever way they prefer. It is expected that mentors will read their mentees assigned papers and reviews and formulate their feedback prior to the feedback session with their mentee. However, the role of the mentor is not to serve as an additional reviewer on their mentee’s papers. Rather, the mentor should provide feedback to ensure that reviews are high-quality, constructive, and fair. To help facilitate that process, resources on what constitutes a high-quality review have been provided below.