Reviewer Instructions, Guidelines and Policies
Thank you for agreeing to review for IEEE ICCV13. The quality of the conference depends to a large extent on the willingness of reviewers like you to provide thoughtful, high-quality reviews. By agreeing to review papers for ICCV13, you commit to
At the bottom of this page you will find general guidelines on ICCV reviewing, writing technical reviews, and ethical considerations. See also the ICCV13 Author Instructions & Policies page.
The ICCV13 Reviewing Timeline
Important Changes to the ICCV13 Review Process
If you have reviewed for ICCV, ECCV or CVPR in the past, we would like to draw your attention to three important changes this year:
Reviewer Registration Instructions (register by March 31)
Step 1: Log on to CMT
Step 2: (NEW) Enter the domain of ONLY your current institution
Step 3: (NEW) Select one TOP-LEVEL primary subject area
Step 4: Select up to five secondary subject areas
Step 5: (NEW) Create a Google Scholar Citations profile for yourself
Step 6: (NEW) Enter the URL of your Google Scholar citation profile in the"My URL" field on CMT
ICCV13 Reviewer Guidelines
Based on the published schedule, you will have four weeks to complete the pre-rebuttal review form; please do not leave this for the last few days before the June 9 deadline. Adhering to this deadline is extremely important since all reviews of all papers must be submitted before we can move to the paper discussion phase, where your reviews will be visible to your fellow reviewers and your Area Chair.
Similarly, you will have a week after the author rebuttals to submit your final recommendation by July 21. Again, adhering this deadline is extremely important because Area Chairs will have a lot of work to do after that point.
What to Look For
Look for what's good or stimulating in the paper. Minor flaws can be corrected and shouldn't be a reason for rejection. Each paper that is accepted should, however, be technically sound and make a substantial contribution to the field.
Blind reviewing is an essential part of ICCV reviewing. 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. Don't say, "you should have cited my paper!"
Note that posting a paper online or giving a public talk does not violate the double-blind policy. Reviewers must not seek the identity of the authors; authors must not bias the review process by suggesting their identities.
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 or public disclosures of techniques. The comment fields are the most important of the review. Your discussion, sometimes more than any scores, will help the authors, fellow reviewers and Area Chairs understand the basis of your opinion.
Your reviews will be returned to the authors and they will be given a chance to respond in their rebuttal. It is therefore important to help authors understand which comments in your review are most important to address in their response and which are less so.
You should include any specific feedback on ways the authors can improve their papers. For more suggestions on writing your reviews, read the section below on Writing Technical Reviews.
Be proactive: participate in discussions & respond promptly to Area Chair requests
Your task as a reviewer does NOT end when you submit the pre-rebuttal part of your review on June 9: reviewers are an integral part of the decision making and should be ready to provide additional input when necessary.
Don’t expect the Area Chair to initiate discussion on papers. When the discussion period begins, your fellow reviewers’ reviews will be visible to you by default. Take a look at what the other reviewers said right away and discuss on the CMT bulletin board. Such discussions must take place in cases of disparate recommendations; disagreement on technical or subjective grounds; errors in the reviews (yours or others’); or new evidence (e.g. important missing related work or technical errors caught by a subset of the reviewers).
If an Area Chair makes a request on the bulletin board, please respond promptly. Each Area Chair is responsible for dozens of papers and thus has a very significant workload; please help make their task easier by responding promptly when they make a request.
When You're Done
When you have finished with your review, you should destroy any paper manuscript and/or supporting material you received. See the Ethics guidelines below.
Writing Technical Reviews
Here are some recommendations that may help you as you do this very valuable task. In many professions, people give back to their community by doing volunteer work. In technical fields, 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. Sure, 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 your review. We suggest reading a paper and then thinking about it over the course of several days before you write your review. "Living" with a paper for a few days gives you time to make thoughtful decisions about it. This is the best way to come up with helpful suggestions for improving the paper. To do this, you need to carve out some time in your day to think about the paper that you are reviewing. The tone of your review is important. 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. Here are some specific issues to keep in mind as you write your reviews:
Ethics for Reviewing Papers
1. Protect Ideas
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 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 CVPR next year. Sometimes the work is still considered confidential by the author's 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 means:
As a reviewer of a ICCV paper, you have a certain power over the reviewing process. It is important for you to avoid any conflict of interest. Even though you would, of course, act impartially on any paper, there should be absolutely no question about the impartiality of review. Thus, if you are assigned a paper where your review would create a possible conflict of interest, you should return the paper and not submit a review. Conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) situations in which:
3. Be Professional
Belittling or sarcastic comments have no place in the reviewing process. 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).
Based on Specific Documents Created for SIGGRAPH by Greg Turk (used here with permission). UPDATED and Modified by Irfan Essa. A few other sources of reviewer guidelines from ACM and IEEE were also considered.