OpenReview Review Analyzer

Fetch all public peer reviews for any paper on OpenReview and generate a structured synthesis report.

When to Use

• User provides an OpenReview URL (e.g., https://openreview.net/forum?id=XXXXX)
• User asks to analyze or summarize reviews for a conference paper
• User mentions a paper's OpenReview forum ID
• User wants to understand reviewer consensus, disagreements, or key concerns
• User asks about scores, ratings, or review content for any venue on OpenReview

Workflow

Step 1: Extract Forum ID

Parse the OpenReview URL or forum ID from user input. The forum ID is the id parameter in the URL:

• https://openreview.net/forum?id=xxxxxxx → forum ID = xxxxxxx

Step 2: Fetch Reviews via Script

Run the Python script to fetch all reviews and metadata:

python3 {baseDir}/scripts/fetch_reviews.py <forum_id>

The script has zero external dependencies — it uses Python's built-in urllib. If requests is installed it will use that instead, but it's not required.

The script outputs a JSON file at /tmp/openreview_<forum_id>.json containing:

• Paper metadata (title, authors, abstract, venue, keywords)
• All official reviews with ratings, confidence, strengths, weaknesses, questions, and full review text
• All official comments (author responses, reviewer discussions)
• Meta-review if available

If the script fails (e.g., network restrictions, reviews not public, paper withdrawn), use these fallback methods in order:

Fallback 1 — web_fetch the API directly:

web_fetch https://api2.openreview.net/notes?forum=<forum_id>

Parse the JSON response to get the submission, then:

web_fetch https://api2.openreview.net/notes?forum=<forum_id>&trash=true

to get all replies including reviews. Filter replies where invitations contains Official_Review.

Fallback 2 — web_search for review content: Search for "<forum_id>" review site:openreview.net or "<paper_title>" review <venue> to find discussions, blog posts, or cached review content.

Fallback 3 — inform the user: If no review data is accessible, explain that reviews may not be public yet, or suggest the user check the OpenReview page directly.

Step 3: Generate Synthesis Report

Read the JSON output and produce a structured report following {baseDir}/references/report-template.md.

Key analysis points:

1. Score Distribution — list each reviewer's rating and confidence, compute average
2. Consensus Points — identify strengths/weaknesses mentioned by multiple reviewers
3. Key Disagreements — where reviewers diverge in opinion
4. Critical Issues — weaknesses flagged as major by any reviewer
5. Questions Raised — important unresolved questions
6. Author Responses — summarize rebuttal if available, and whether reviewers updated scores
7. Meta-Review — include AC recommendation if available
8. Overall Assessment — synthesize into a clear verdict

Important Notes

• OpenReview content is public for completed review cycles. Some venues keep reviews private until decisions are made.
• For withdrawn papers, reviews may or may not be visible depending on venue policy.
• Always attribute opinions to specific reviewers (e.g., "Reviewer 1 (rating: 5)") when citing specific claims.
• The script uses the OpenReview API v2 by default (for venues from 2024+) and falls back to API v1 for older venues.
• No authentication is needed for reading public reviews.

Output Language

Match the user's language. If the user writes in Chinese, output the report in Chinese. If in English, output in English.