This year’s “peer review dialog meeting” will take up what participants have articulated last year and what the Policy Council has undertaken in the meantime. Briefly put: even though the final decision is up to the programme committee, formally deficient papers would be rejected without revision, formally deficient reviews would lead to suspending the reviewer for one year, authors of accepted papers would evaluate the review’s usefulness and reviewers would have a discussion forum in order to collaborate. One conference later, we shall ask how the actual process related to the planned one, on the basis of last year’s report and the PC’s response to it. We’ll also assess how it worked this time, indicate what has been achieved and what seems to need improvement. We shall conjointly set up a set of recommendations, too.