Read on Twitter
To encourage reviewers to consider the carefully crafted reviewer guidelines available at: http://iccv2021.thecvf.com/node/39
we">https://iccv2021.thecvf.com/node/39&q... will publish daily snippet reminders of these guidelines in this thread. #ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021. #Day2_of_40 days reviewing period #StartEarly
1/N
we">https://iccv2021.thecvf.com/node/39&q... will publish daily snippet reminders of these guidelines in this thread. #ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021. #Day2_of_40 days reviewing period #StartEarly
1/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day2_of_40
"Each accepted paper should be technically sound and make a contribution to the field. Look for what& #39;s good or stimulating in the paper. Embrace novel, brave concepts, even if they have not been tested on many datasets."
2/N
"Each accepted paper should be technically sound and make a contribution to the field. Look for what& #39;s good or stimulating in the paper. Embrace novel, brave concepts, even if they have not been tested on many datasets."
2/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day3_of_40
Protect Ideas: "You have the responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the ideas in the papers you review.
You should not show paper/videos/images to others.
You shouldn& #39;t use ideas from these papers to develop your own ideas."
3/N
Protect Ideas: "You have the responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the ideas in the papers you review.
You should not show paper/videos/images to others.
You shouldn& #39;t use ideas from these papers to develop your own ideas."
3/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day4_of_40
"Be Professional: Belittling or sarcastic comments have no place in the reviewing process. Write a courteous, informative, incisive, and helpful review that you would be proud to sign with your name (were it not anonymous)."
4/N
"Be Professional: Belittling or sarcastic comments have no place in the reviewing process. Write a courteous, informative, incisive, and helpful review that you would be proud to sign with your name (were it not anonymous)."
4/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day5_of_40
"Be Professional: Take the time to write good reviews. Short reviews are unhelpful to authors, other reviewers, and Area Chairs. If you have agreed to review, you should take enough time to write a thoughtful and detailed review."
5/N
"Be Professional: Take the time to write good reviews. Short reviews are unhelpful to authors, other reviewers, and Area Chairs. If you have agreed to review, you should take enough time to write a thoughtful and detailed review."
5/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day6_of_40
"Be specific when you suggest that the writing needs to be improved. If there is a particular section that is unclear, point it out (in Section or line numbers) and give suggestions for how it can be clarified."
6/N
"Be specific when you suggest that the writing needs to be improved. If there is a particular section that is unclear, point it out (in Section or line numbers) and give suggestions for how it can be clarified."
6/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day7_of_40
"Do not reject papers solely because they are missing citations or comparisons to prior work that has only been published without review (e.g. arXiv or technical reports). Refer to the FAQ for more details"
#_q576f6orhvzx">http://iccv2021.thecvf.com/node/39 #_q576f6orhvzx
7/N">https://iccv2021.thecvf.com/node/39...
"Do not reject papers solely because they are missing citations or comparisons to prior work that has only been published without review (e.g. arXiv or technical reports). Refer to the FAQ for more details"
#_q576f6orhvzx">http://iccv2021.thecvf.com/node/39 #_q576f6orhvzx
7/N">https://iccv2021.thecvf.com/node/39...
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day8_of_40
"If you think the paper is out of scope for ICCV, clearly explain why in the review & suggest other publication venues. However, unless area mismatch is extreme, you should keep an open mind. We want a diverse set of good papers."
8/N
"If you think the paper is out of scope for ICCV, clearly explain why in the review & suggest other publication venues. However, unless area mismatch is extreme, you should keep an open mind. We want a diverse set of good papers."
8/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day9_of_40
"Avoid referring to the authors in second person ("you"). Instead, use third person ("the authors" or "the paper"). Using "you" can be perceived as being confrontational, even though you may not mean it this way."
9/N
"Avoid referring to the authors in second person ("you"). Instead, use third person ("the authors" or "the paper"). Using "you" can be perceived as being confrontational, even though you may not mean it this way."
9/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day10_of_40
"Be generous: about giving the authors new ideas for how they can improve their work: new technical tool that could help, a dataset that could be tried, an application area, or a way to generalize their idea to increase its impact."
10/N
"Be generous: about giving the authors new ideas for how they can improve their work: new technical tool that could help, a dataset that could be tried, an application area, or a way to generalize their idea to increase its impact."
10/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day11_of_40
"Each paper should be evaluated in its own right. If you feel that most papers assigned to you have value, you should accept them. Do NOT assume that your stack should have the same acceptance rate as the entire conference."
11/N
"Each paper should be evaluated in its own right. If you feel that most papers assigned to you have value, you should accept them. Do NOT assume that your stack should have the same acceptance rate as the entire conference."
11/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day12_of_40
"Reviewers should make every effort to treat each paper impartially. It is *NOT* OK for a reviewer to think "I know who wrote this; it& #39;s on arXiv; they are//aren& #39;t usually good" and accept//reject the paper based on that reasoning."
12/N
"Reviewers should make every effort to treat each paper impartially. It is *NOT* OK for a reviewer to think "I know who wrote this; it& #39;s on arXiv; they are//aren& #39;t usually good" and accept//reject the paper based on that reasoning."
12/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day13_of_40
"Reviewers SHOULD NOT reject a paper solely because another paper with a similar idea has appeared on arXiv. If the reviewer suspects plagiarism or academic dishonesty, they should bring these concerns to the attention of the PCs."
13/N
"Reviewers SHOULD NOT reject a paper solely because another paper with a similar idea has appeared on arXiv. If the reviewer suspects plagiarism or academic dishonesty, they should bring these concerns to the attention of the PCs."
13/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day14_of_40
"Supplementary material: intended to provide derivations and results that don& #39;t fit within the paper format or space limit. Consult the sup. material only if you think it is helpful in understanding the paper and its contribution."
14/N
"Supplementary material: intended to provide derivations and results that don& #39;t fit within the paper format or space limit. Consult the sup. material only if you think it is helpful in understanding the paper and its contribution."
14/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day15_of_40
"Supplementary material: MAY NOT include results on additional datasets, results obtained with an improved version of the method, or an updated version of the submission. If you find violations of these guidelines, contact the PCs."
15/N
"Supplementary material: MAY NOT include results on additional datasets, results obtained with an improved version of the method, or an updated version of the submission. If you find violations of these guidelines, contact the PCs."
15/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day16_of_40
"In your review, you may request clarifications or additional illustrations in the rebuttal. In a 2018 PAMI-TC motion, reviewers should not request substantial additional experiments, or penalize for lack of additional experiments."
16/N
"In your review, you may request clarifications or additional illustrations in the rebuttal. In a 2018 PAMI-TC motion, reviewers should not request substantial additional experiments, or penalize for lack of additional experiments."
16/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day17_of_40
"Authors have been instructed to hide their identities. Likewise, reviewers should make all efforts to keep their identity invisible. Don& #39;t give away your identity by asking the authors to cite several of your own papers."
17/N
"Authors have been instructed to hide their identities. Likewise, reviewers should make all efforts to keep their identity invisible. Don& #39;t give away your identity by asking the authors to cite several of your own papers."
17/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day18_of_40
"What to look for: It is important to weigh both the novelty and potential impact of the work alongside the reported performance. Minor flaws that can be easily corrected should not be a reason to reject a paper."
18/N
"What to look for: It is important to weigh both the novelty and potential impact of the work alongside the reported performance. Minor flaws that can be easily corrected should not be a reason to reject a paper."
18/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day19_of_40
"The tone of your review is important. A harshly written review will be resented by the authors, regardless of whether your criticisms are true. It is possible to word your review constructively while staying true to your thoughts."
19/N
"The tone of your review is important. A harshly written review will be resented by the authors, regardless of whether your criticisms are true. It is possible to word your review constructively while staying true to your thoughts."
19/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day20_of_40
Reviewing form starts with a summary. This section should be objective, and your target audience is the AC who has not read the paper. Avoid abbreviations familiar to those who read the paper. Highlight the key ideas & significance.
20/N
Reviewing form starts with a summary. This section should be objective, and your target audience is the AC who has not read the paper. Avoid abbreviations familiar to those who read the paper. Highlight the key ideas & significance.
20/N
#ReviewerGuidelines #ICCV2021 #Day21_of_40
The strengths section should focus on what& #39;s valuable in the paper. Please avoid starting with: "The paper is well-written". Think about motivation/method/ablations as well as qual. results/limitations section/strong conclusion..
21/N
The strengths section should focus on what& #39;s valuable in the paper. Please avoid starting with: "The paper is well-written". Think about motivation/method/ablations as well as qual. results/limitations section/strong conclusion..
21/N
