Papers under consideration for publication should not be distributed or disclosed to any individual, except with the explicit authorization of the program chair for purpose of review. Accepted papers are considered unpublished until the day of the conference, and should not be discussed outside the program committee without explicit permission from the authors. All reviewers must be made aware that submissions are unpublished works, and in no case should they duplicate them, pass them on to other people, or discuss them with people other than the members of the program committee. The program chair should keep a record of the external reviewers used to review submissions.
Anonymized reviews are the non-exclusive property of the authors of the reviewed paper: they can be made public or attached to resubmissions of the paper. Anonymized reviews can also be analyzed under the auspices of SIGPLAN for research purposes such as evaluation of bias.
The title, authors, acceptance status, and other metadata (including discussion summaries, if they exist) can be shared under the discretion of the program chair, when there is an expectation of legitimate benefit for other SIGPLAN processes (such as a related review committee, or an artifact evaluation process).
A conflict of interest is defined as a situation in which the reviewer can be viewed as being able to benefit personally from the outcome of a review, or in which the reviewer is not able to remain objective for personal reasons. If a conflict of interest exists, then the reviewer should decline to review a paper. During the program committee meeting, any committee member who has a conflict of interest regarding a paper may be asked to leave the room for the duration of the discussion.
Among the situations in which conflicts are typically considered to exist are between an advisor and their students (forever), an author and their co-authors (until two years after publication), and people in the same institution (until two years after; branches of large companies or different locations of research institutes are considered to be the same institution). If a reviewer feels unable to render an objective judgement for any reason, he or she should notify the program chair.
Reviewers should not interact with authors about their submitted papers. Any interaction should go through the program chair.