I reviewed a paper, which was then accepted as "presentation-only" with a possibility to submit a revised version to be re-reviewed. Upon acceptance, I was asked to be a shepherd for the paper.

  1. What are the typical duties of a shepherd?
  2. Which duties might seem shepherd's duties, but, in fact, are not?
  3. Does the shepherd get any academic credit?
  4. Do paper authors get to know the shepherd's name?

EDIT: This question is partially (i.e., not fully) covered by Thanking a "shepherd" in acknowledgments. Here, we ask for a more detailed, canonical description. In particular, feel free to add more items to this question by means of editing.

  • 2
    My guess is that if the authors are your "sheep" (rather than the paper being your sheep), then you will be in charge of emailing them at some point. This sounds like an informal role, and I'm curious to know whether there is one canonical answer for CS. Good luck! May 15, 2018 at 20:29
  • 5
    This notion of "shepherd" is one that I've seen only in computer science conferences, and there it was quite informal. Usually, when a paper was given a shepherd, the program committee had already discussed what needed to be improved in the paper, and the understanding was that the shepherd would (try to) get those improvements made. May 16, 2018 at 1:15
  • Possible duplicate of Thanking a "shepherd" in acknowledgments May 24, 2018 at 23:09

1 Answer 1


in my experience, the shepherd is supposed to produce constructive feedback, and basically setting a shepherd on a paper tells the authors they need to keep working on the paper for as long as possible. Don't worry about it too much, you're not meant to rewrite their paper. Ask the person that set you up to be shepherd whether the authors will know you or not. You might get mentionned, same as reviewers in the proceeedings, but think of it more as building experience and goodwill in your research network.

You must log in to answer this question.