Thank you for agreeing to review for ICCV 2015. To maintain
a high-quality technical program, we rely very much on the
time and expertise of our reviewers. This document explains
what is expected of all members of the Reviewing Committee for
Please read the following
submission instructions carefully, as some steps are new (e.g., you
will be allowed to bid for the papers you wish to review) or have
changed (e.g., authors will be allowed to submit a new pdf containing
a minor revision of their paper at rebuttal time) for ICCV 2015. They
are highlighted in red.
||paper submission deadline
||paper bidding period
|May 27-June 26
||paper review period
||paper reviews due
||author rebuttals and minor revisions due
||reviewers write final recommendations,
discussion between area chairs and reviewers
||final reviewer recommendations due
The following provides further details for
reviewing papers using the ICCV 2015
submission and reviewer system. In addition,
please see the FAQs.
- The submission/review site is https://cmt.research.microsoft.com/ICCV2015/ (bookmark
or save this URL!)
- Please make sure that your browser has
- Please add "firstname.lastname@example.org" to your
list of safe senders in your own email client to prevent important
email announcements from being blocked by spam filters.
CMT ACCOUNT LOGIN: Go to
CMT, users are identified by their emails. Each time CMT is used for a
new conference a new CMT account is created. To manage conflicts of
interest during reviewer assignment, it is extremely important that
each CMT user has one and only one CMT account for ICCV 2015, even if
the user has multiple roles (e.g., author and area chair, author and
reviewer). As a reviewer, you already have a CMT account for ICCV
2015. Your login is the email address where you received the reviewer
invitation. To ensure that each user has only one account, please let
your co-authors know your e-mail for CMT purposes.
CMT ACCOUNT PASSWORD: Go to
get your password, click "Reset here." Enter the code displayed in the
email and your e-mail address for CMT purposes. Click submit. You will
receive an email with your password.
REVIEWER TYPE: Go to https://cmt.research.microsoft.com/ICCV2015/
and login. Please select "Researcher/Faculty", "Graduate Student", or
ENTER INSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT DOMAIN. Enter the
primary domain of your current institution, not the secondary domain
of your department (e.g., use "jhu.edu" instead of
"cs.jhu.edu"). Please enter ONLY ONE institutional conflict domain,
except if your institution has multiple domains
(e.g. "uni-heidelberg.de; uni-hd.de" or "uiuc.edu; illinois.edu"), or
if you were affiliated with more than one institution in the last 12
months (April 2014 - April, 2015). DO NOT enter the domain of email
providers such as "gmail.com", "yahoo.com", "hotmail.com" and
"163.com" as your institutional conflict.
Example 1: mit.edu
Example 2: mit.edu; inria.fr
Example 3: google.com; ox.ac.uk
Example 4: inria.fr; ens.fr; iiit.ac.in
Note that your institutional conflict information
is not automatically extracted from your email or from the name of
your institution, thus you must enter it here.
SUBJECT AREAS: Please select your primary subject
area and up to 5 secondary subject areas. These will be used by
authors to suggest ACs for their papers and also for assigning papers
URL: In order to mine your co-authorship conflicts,
we will need to have your DBLP profile in CMT. Please follow these
instructions to get your DBLP profile.
- Go to dblp.org
and enter your name (e.g. "Antonio
Torralba") in the search box.
- Find your name in "Refine by AUTHOR" in
the right column. Click on your name
- Export to XML format by clicking on "get
these search results as XML".
- Enter this XML export link URL into CMT by
clicking on the "My URL" link in CMT
CHANGING YOUR LOGIN, PASSWORD and INSTITUTION: In
case you need to change your login (e.g., if the e-mail we used for
you is no longer valid) or institution, first log in with your old
login and password as instructed above. Then, go to the top right of
the screen and click on your name. Click on "Change your Password" to
change your password. Click on "Edit Personal Information" to change
your email or institution.
SELECT YOUR ROLE: You may have more than
one role (author, reviewer,
meta-reviewer). Select "Reviewer" to
TPMS: Go to the Toronto
paper matching system. If you already have
a TPMS account, please login, click on "Update account info."
and make sure that the e-mail address of your TPMS account
matches that of your CMT account. Then, click on "Selected
Papers" to see the papers that are currently in your
profile. Please edit your profile to have about 10 papers that
are representative examples of the kind of papers you wish to
review. If you do not have a TPMS account, please create one,
and follow the same instructions above.
After the submission deadline, once you
receive an e-mail asking you to bid on papers, please do the
- In the Reviewer Console, click on
"Manage Bids -> View/Edit Bids
- Click on "View Submission".
- You will see now a table with
papers assigned to you for bidding. To see the paper abstracts,
click on the "+" sign under "Title" in the table header.
Above the table next to "Set bids for
selected submissions to", by clicking on the button "Not Entered", you
see a small menu with the categories
0 - Not Willing
1 - In-a-Pinch
2 - Willing
3 - Eager
Select a single category and then in the
leftmost table column the corresponding papers. Then click "Set Bids"
above the table. The result will be displayed in the rightmost table
column for the selected papers.
Please select at least 10 papers as
"Eager" and at least 10 more papers as
In case you notice a paper you are
conflicted with, you should definitely classify it as "Not Willing"
(see conflict responsibilities detailed in the Author Guidelines).
Paper review and preliminary ratings
After paper bidding, once you receive an
e-mail asking you to review your assigned
papers, please do the following:
- As soon as you get your paper assignments, please go
through all the papers to check for possible conflict or
submission rule violations. Contact the Program Chairs
- You think you are in any way
conflicted with the paper (e.g., a paper authored by a former
student of yours, your former advisor, a colleague in your current
institution, your recent collaborator from a different
institution). Please see Ethics for Reviewing Papers
- You feel uncomfortable reviewing the paper assigned to you.
- You notice that there is a violation
of the stated paper submission rules. Such a violation includes:
- Over 8 pages (not
over 9 pages
- Constitutes a double
- Supplementary material
includes a newer version
of the paper.
- Please specify the
exact nature of
- For your reference,
the paper submission guidelines, which includes descriptions of
ICCV 2015's dual submission policy, can be found in the Author
- Before writing a review, please read the sections Writing
Technical Reviews and Ethics for Reviewing Papers.
- For a paper, under the review column, click "Add" (to the
right of the "Review" line) to enter a review. The review form
contains detailed instructions about writing the review and the
meaning of the different ratings (Oral, Poster, etc.).
- CMT does not allow users to type certain characters into a
text box that could be interpreted as html tags (for
example, "y<x") or a malicious script. As a workaround,
introducing spaces between these characters (for example,
"y < x") will allow you to submit the text since this
can no longer be interpreted as an html tag.
- If you save your review as a draft, it is visible only to
you. You can access your draft review form by clicking on the same
"Add" link. To make the review visible to the Area Chair, click on
the "Submit" button in the review form. "Submit" won't work if any
of the required items is not filled.
After the rebuttal deadline, once you've
received an e-mail asking you to discuss a paper, read the authors'
rebuttal or minor revision, and submit a final recommendation, please
do the following:
After the rebuttal period, you will work with Area Chairs to clear
up any confusions and attempt to reach consensus on papers. The
CMT site has an electronic bulletin board feature that allows Area
Chairs to contact reviewers anonymously. Once the Area Chair posts
a note, you will be notified and asked to log in to see the post
and respond. The identities of the reviewers will be hidden from
- Please familiarize
yourself with the data under "Detailed Reviews and
Discussions". "Paper Summary" label: next to it, you'll see the
icons "+" and "-". Clicking on "+" shows you all the abstracts;
clicking on "-" collapses all them back. At the end of each paper
title, you'll see "+" as well. This has the same function of
showing the abstract for that paper, toggling to "-" at the same
time, which collapses it when selected. Please take the time to
familiarize yourself with the table entries; clicking on any of
the column heading (e.g., "Paper ID") sorts according to its
that authors may optionally upload a rebuttal and an updated
version of the paper with minor revisions that addresses the
reviewers' comments. Please check if authors obeyed the
corresponding author guidelines: "Changes between the original
submission and the revised version MUST be minimal (as they are
meant to address only the reviewers' comments) and MUST be
highlighted in red to facilitate checking the changes. The revised
version must adhere to the same blind-submission review-formatted
template as the original submission."
- Please read the author's
rebuttal and minor revision and enter your final recommendation in
CMT. This may differ from your preliminary rating, and should
reflect your judgment taking into account all the other reviews,
the authors' rebuttal and minor revision, and the discussion about
the paper (if any).
You have two options to access the "Offline Reviewing" page: (1)
In the "Paper Reviews and Discussions" page, click on "Review
papers offline" link near the top of the page, or (2) In the
"View/Edit Review" page, click on "offline reviewing" link.
- In the "Offline Reviewing" page,
you can download one review template file for a single paper,
several papers, or all the papers. We suggest that you download a
review template file for each paper to avoid confusion.
- Please read instructions on how to
modify the file to incorporate your responses. Note that you must
not add certain characters in your responses that could be
interpreted as html tags or a malicious script. See item 3 above.
- You can upload the completed file
using the "Upload" interface at the bottom of the page. The new
uploaded version will (destructively) overwrite the current
- We suggest that you try
downloading a review template file for one paper, enter test
responses, and upload to get a sense of how it works.
- You should always verify the
review after uploading (by
inspecting it online).
- We suggest that you use an XML
editor to edit the file, for example: EditiX (Windows, Unix/Linux,
Mac OS X) or XML Notepad 2007 (Windows only). (Remember to edit
only fields currently filled with the phrase "REPLACE THIS WITH
Here are some recommendations that may help you as you do
this very valuable task.
We volunteer our time by reviewing papers that are written
by other researchers in our field. We recommend that you approach your
reviews in this spirit of volunteerism. Your reviews make you a
gatekeeper in helping decide which papers are ready for
publication. Just as important, however, is to provide feedback to the
authors so that they may improve their work. Try to write your review
in a way that the authors can benefit from. We suggest reading a paper
and then thinking about it over the course of several days before you
write your review.
Look for what's good or stimulating in the paper. Minor
flaws can be corrected and shouldn't be a reason to reject a
paper. ICCV as a conference is looking for new ideas. We recommend
that you embrace novel, brave concepts, even if they have not been
tested on many datasets. For example, the fact that a proposed method
does not exceed the state of the art accuracy on an existing benchmark
dataset is not grounds for rejection by itself. Acceptance and
rejection decisions should not be determined solely by the method's
raw performance. Rather, it is important to weigh both the novelty and
potential impact of the work alongside the reported performance. Each
paper that is accepted should be technically sound and make a
contribution to the field.
The tone of your review is extremely important. Belittling
or sarcastic comments have no place in the reviewing process. A
harshly written review will be disregarded by the authors, regardless
of whether your criticisms are true. If you take care, it is always
possible to word your review diplomatically while staying true to your
thoughts about the paper. Put yourself in the mindset of writing to
someone you wish to help, such as a respected colleague who wants your
opinion on a concept or a project. The most valuable comments in a
review are those that help the authors understand the shortcomings of
their work and how they might improve it. Write a courteous,
informative, incisive, and helpful review that you would be proud to
add your name to (were it not anonymous).
Please be specific and detailed in your reviews. In the
discussion of related work and references, simply saying "this is well
known" or "this has been common practice in the industry for years" is
not sufficient: cite specific publications, including books, or public
disclosures of techniques.
Your main critique of the paper should be written in terms
of a list of strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Use bullet points
here, and explain your arguments. Your discussion, sometimes more
important than your score, will help the authors, fellow reviewers,
and Area Chairs understand the basis of your opinions, so please be
thorough. Your reviews will be returned to the authors, so you should
include specific feedback on ways the authors can improve their
Here are some specific issues to keep in mind as you write your
Short reviews are unhelpful to authors, other reviewers, and Area
Chairs. If you have agreed to review a paper, you should take
enough time to write a thoughtful and detailed review.
- Be specific when you suggest that the
writing needs to be improved. If there is a particular section
that is unclear, point it out and give suggestions for how it can
- Don't give away your identity by asking the
authors to cite several of your own papers.
- Be specific about novelty. Claims in a review that
the submitted work "has been done before" MUST be backed up with
specific references and an explanation of how closely they are
related. At the same time, for a positive review, be sure to
summarize what novel aspects are most interesting in the
- If you think the paper is out of scope for ICCV's
subject areas, clearly explain why in the review. You may find the
Call for Papers here. Then
suggest other publication possibilities (journals, conferences,
workshops) that would be a better match for the paper.
- Avoid referring to the authors by using the phrase
"you". These phrases should be replaced by "the authors" or "the
paper." Referring to the authors as "you" can be perceived as
being confrontational, even though you do not mean it this way.
Be generous about giving the authors new ideas for how they
can improve their work. Your suggestions may be very specific (for
example, "this numerical solver would be better for your application")
or may be more general in nature. You might suggest a new dataset that
could be tried, or a new application area that might benefit from
their tool. You may tell them how their idea can be generalized beyond
what they have already considered. A thoughtful review not only
benefits the authors, but may benefit you as well. Remember that your
reviews are read by other reviewers and especially the Area Chairs, in
addition to the authors. Being a helpful reviewer will generate good
will towards you in the research community.
Authors were asked to take reasonable efforts to hide their
identities, including not listing their names or affiliations and
omitting acknowledgments. This information will of course be included
in the published version. Reviewers should also make all efforts to
keep their identity invisible to the authors. Please see the Author
Guidelines for details on how authors have been
instructed to preserve anonymity, including guidelines for referencing
one's own prior work.
As a reviewer for ICCV, you have the responsibility to protect the
confidentiality of the ideas represented in the papers you
review. ICCV submissions are not published documents. The work is
considered new or proprietary by the authors; otherwise they would not
have submitted it. Of course, their intent is to ultimately publish it
to the world, but most of the submitted papers will not appear in the
ICCV proceedings. Thus, it is likely that the paper you have in your
hands will be refined further and submitted to some other journal or
conference, or even to ICCV next year. Sometimes the work is still
considered confidential by the authors' employers. These organizations
do not consider sending a paper to ICCV for review to constitute a
public disclosure. Protection of the ideas in the papers you receive
You should not show the paper to anyone else, including colleagues
or students, unless you have asked them to write a review, or to
help with your review.
- You should not show any results or
videos/images or any of the supplementary material to
- You should not use ideas from papers you review to
develop new ones.
- After the review process, you should
destroy all copies of papers and videos and erase any
implementations you have written to evaluate the ideas in the
papers, as well as any results of those implementations.
As a reviewer, it is important for you to avoid any
conflict of interest. There should be absolutely no question about the
impartiality of any review. Thus, if you are assigned a paper where
your review would create a possible conflict of interest, you should
return the paper as soon as it is assigned to you and not submit a
review. Conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to)
situations in which:
You work at the same institution as one of the authors.
- You have been directly involved in the
work and will be receiving credit in some way. If you're a member
of the author's thesis committee, and the paper is about his or
her thesis work, then you were involved.
- You suspect that others might see a
conflict of interest in your
- You have collaborated with one of the
authors in the past three years (more or less). Collaboration is
usually defined as having written a paper or grant proposal
together, although you should use your judgment.
- You were the MS/PhD advisor of one of the
authors or the MS/PhD advisee of one of the authors. Most funding
agencies and publications typically consider advisees to represent
a lifetime conflict of interest.
While the organizers make every effort to avoid
such conflicts in the review assignments, they may nonetheless
occasionally arise. If you recognize the work or the author and feel
it could present a conflict of interest, email the Program Chairs
immediately after the paper is assigned to you so that they can find
someone else to review it.
Can I change my e-mail?
follow the instructions at the beginning of this page.
- Can I
change my areas and conflict information before the submission
follow the instructions at the beginning of this page.
- "Can I
change my areas and conflict information after the submission
areas and conflict information are used for paper matching and
cannot be changed after the papers have been submitted.
- Is the ICCV 2015
Review Process CONFIDENTIAL?
2015 Reviewing is considered confidential. All reviewers are
required to keep every manuscript they review as confidential
documents and not to share or distribute materials for any reason
except to facilitate the reviewing of the submitted work.
ICCV 2015 Reviews Double BLIND or Single BLIND?
ICCV reviewing is
Double BLIND, in that authors do not know the names of the area
chair/reviewers of their papers, and area chairs/reviewers do not
know the names of the authors. Please read Section 1.6 of the
example paper egpaper_for_review.pdf
for detailed instructions on how to preserve anonymity. Avoid
providing information that may identify the authors in the
acknowledgments (e.g., co-workers and grant IDs) and in the
supplemental material (e.g., titles in the movies, or attached
papers). Avoid providing links to websites that identify the
authors. Violation of any of these guidelines will lead to
rejection without review.
- Is there a minimum
number of papers I should accept or reject?
paper should be evaluated in its own right. If you feel that most
of the papers assigned to you have value, you should accept
them. It is unlikely that most papers are bad enough to justify
rejecting them all. However, if that is the case, provide clear
and very specific comments in each review. Do NOT assume that your
stack of papers necessarily should have the same acceptance rate
as the entire conference ultimately will.