As a reviewer for SIGGRAPH, you have the responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the ideas represented in the submissions you review. Protection of the ideas in the submissions you receive means:
As a reviewer of a SIGGRAPH submission, you have a certain power over the reviewing process. It is important for you to avoid any conflict of interest. There should be absolutely no question about the impartiality of your review. Thus, if you are assigned a submission where your review would create a possible conflict of interest, you should return the submission and not submit a review.
Conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) situations in which:
But if you recognize the work or the contributor and feel it could present a conflict of interest, send the submission back to the General Submission chair as soon as possible so that someone else can be found to review it.
We have a responsibility to take the reviewing process seriously. You should make an effort to do a good review. This may seem obvious, but one of the complaints we have heard about the SIGGRAPH review process is that some reviews can be so sketchy that it looks like the reviewer did not even seem to take the time to read the submission carefully. A casual or flippant review of a submission that the author has seriously submitted is not appropriate. In the long run, casual reviewing is a most damaging attack on the SIGGRAPH conference. There is no dishonor in being too busy to do a good review, or to realize that you have over-committed yourself. But it is a big mistake to take on too much and then not back out early enough to allow recovery. If you cannot do a decent job, give the submission back and say so. But please, do it early so that there is time to select another reviewer before the deadline.
Belittling or sarcastic comments are unnecessary in the reviewing process. Be objective and constructive in your reviews. The most valuable comments in a review are those that help the contributor understand the shortcomings of their work and how they might improve it. If you intensely dislike a submission, give it a low score. That makes a sufficient statement.
Adherence to ethics makes the whole reviewing process more complicated and sometimes less efficient. But convenience, efficiency, and expediency are not good reasons to contravene ethics. It is precisely at those times when it would be easier or more efficient to bend the rules that it is most important to do the right thing. Ultimately, spending that energy and time is an investment in the long-term health of the general submissions, the conference, and the community.