• Each submission was evaluated by two reviewers from the scientific committee. Reviewers were assigned by Matteo Toscani—apologies, as many topics did not match the core expertise of the reviewers, but more than 1,200 reviews had to be assigned.
• Each review consists of an overall rating (on a 1–5 scale), based on significance, novelty, and methodology, as well as a recommendation regarding the preferred presentation format (poster or talk).
• An abstract was rejected only if both reviewers recommended rejection.
• Who applied for a poster only, was assigned a poster.

Talk selection procedure

• We scheduled 20 talk sessions, for a total of 120 talks. This means that roughly one third of submissions requesting a talk, or either a talk or poster, could be accepted as oral presentations. We are sorry if anyone is disappointed by the outcome.
• We excluded from the selection for an oral presentation all the ones for which both reviewers recommended a poster.
• Talks were mainly assigned based on the reviewers’ ranking.
• With the same ranking, we favoured speakers coming from further away and those who preferred talk only rather than either.
• When reviewers provided comments, we could use them to reconsider the grade (we did that in one case).
• We did not strictly follow the ranking in a small number of cases where highly ranked abstracts covered unique or less common topics. In those instances, we also considered how well submissions aligned with the more popular conference themes.