Mr. Powers called it “a strange thing indeed” for the Academy to shift decision making to third parties, in this case the newspapers. But he added, “I can understand that the Academy wants to focus its recognition on films that have had a kind of legitimate theatrical release.”

Mr. Robertson said the rule was part of an effort by the Academy to ensure that Oscars go to what he called “genuine theatrical” movies, rather than to films that might be made primarily for television but given brief theatrical exposure, or played for a tiny number of viewers simply to qualify.

Asked whether worthwhile films might be cut out, he said: “We may indeed lose worthy films. But I don’t think we’ll lose worthy theatrical films.”

A draft of the proposed rule did not specify whether the review had to be included in a print edition, or might run only online. It also did not specify length, or distinguish between the sort of capsule review, which sometimes introduces festival films, and a more elaborate piece of criticism. Reviews by television critics were specifically ruled out.

The review policy comes atop other major changes that will be announced this week, according to Michael Moore, a member of the Academy’s board of governors and a prime mover behind the revisions. Mr. Moore said the Academy planned to abandon a system under which committees within the documentary branch divided up films for viewing and scoring under an intricate numerical system. Instead, the entire 157-member branch will now be allowed to vote for the five nominees and the whole 5,800-member Academy will then vote for the best documentary, even if members have seen the films only on a screener. In the past only the several hundred members who actually attended a screening voted for the best documentary, a limiting factor that Mr. Moore and others have long believed to work against the more popular and culturally significant films.

The documentary branch has often been a center of controversy, as a large and growing number of documentarians each year press for recognition and question decisions that have often slighted relatively popular films in favor of smaller and more obscure ones. Eyebrows were raised when widely viewed documentaries like “Tyson,” from James Toback, and “Capitalism: A Love Story” from Mr. Moore, were overlooked in favor of less visible movies.