Call for Papers
Important: Please note that the policies have been extensively updated from the 2019 version, including guidelines related to code submission, and research areas.
Papers in the main technical program must describe high-quality, original research. Topics of interest include the following aspects of computer vision and pattern recognition:
- 3D from a single image and shape-from-x
- Action and behavior recognition
- Adversarial learning
- Computational photography
- Datasets and evaluation
- Detection and localization in 2D and 3D
- Efficient training and inference methods
- Explainable AI
- Fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in vision
- Gestures and body pose
- Image and video synthesis
- Image and video retrieval
- Image and video manipulation detection and integrity methods.
- Low-level and physics-based vision
- Machine learning architectures and formulations
- Medical, biological, and cell microscopy
- Motion and tracking
- Neural generative models
- Optimization and learning methods
- Recognition and classification
- Representation learning
- Scene analysis and understanding
- Scene text and document understanding
- Segmentation, grouping and shape
- Stereo, 3D from multiview and other sensors
- Transfer/Low-shot/Semi/Unsupervised Learning
- Video analysis and understanding
- Vision + language
- Vision + other modalities
- Vision applications and systems
- Vision for robotics and autonomous vehicles
- Visual reasoning and logical representation
All submissions will be handled electronically. In addition to the main technical program, the conference will include Tutorials, Workshops, Demonstrations, and Exhibits. Submit proposals to the appropriate chair.
Review Process: By submitting a paper to ICCV, the authors agree to the review process and understand that papers are processed by the Toronto system to match each manuscript to the best possible area chairs and reviewers.
Confidentiality: The review process of ICCV is confidential. Reviewers are volunteers not part of the ICCV organisation and their efforts are greatly appreciated. The practice of keeping all information confidential during the review is part of the standard communication to all reviewers. Misuse of confidential information is a severe professional failure and appropriate measures will be taken when brought to the attention of ICCV organizers. It should be noted, however, that the organization of ICCV is not and cannot be held responsible for the consequences when reviewers break confidentiality.
Conflict Responsibilities: It is the primary author's responsibility to ensure that all authors on their paper have registered their institutional conflicts into CMT (see details under Domain Conflicts below). If a paper is found to have an undeclared or incorrect institutional conflict, the paper may be summarily rejected. To avoid undeclared conflicts, the author list is considered to be final after the submission deadline and no changes are allowed for accepted papers.
Double blind review: ICCV reviewing is double blind, in that authors do not know the names of the area chairs/reviewers of their papers, and the area chairs/reviewers cannot, beyond a reasonable doubt, infer the names of the authors from the submission and the additional material. 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 may lead to rejection without review. If you need to cite a different paper of yours that is being submitted concurrently to ICCV, the authors should (1) cite these papers; (2) argue in the body of your paper why your ICCV paper is non trivially different from these concurrent submissions; and (3) include anonymized versions of those papers in the supplemental material.
Plagiarism: Plagiarism consists of appropriating the words or results of another, without credit. ICCV 2021's policy on plagiarism is to refer suspected cases to the IEEE Intellectual Property office, which has an established mechanism for dealing with plagiarism and wide powers of excluding offending authors from future conferences and IEEE journals. You can find information on this office, their procedures, and their definitions of five levels of plagiarism at this webpage. We will be actively checking for plagiarism. Furthermore, the paper matching system is quite accurate. As a result, it regularly happens that a paper containing plagiarized material goes to a reviewer from whom material was plagiarized; experience shows that such reviewers pursue plagiarism cases enthusiastically.
Dual/Double Submissions: The goals of ICCV are to publish exciting new work for the first time and to avoid duplicating the effort of reviewers.
By submitting a manuscript to ICCV, authors acknowledge that it has not been previously published or accepted for publication in a substantially similar form in any peer-reviewed venue including journal, conference, workshop, or archival forum. Furthermore, no publication substantially similar in content has been or will be submitted to this or another conference, workshop, or journal during the review period. Violation of any of these conditions will lead to rejection, and will be reported to the other venue to which the submission was sent.
A publication, for the purposes of this policy, is defined to be a written work longer than four pages (excluding references) that was submitted for review by peers for either acceptance or rejection, and, after review, was accepted. In particular, this definition of publication does not depend upon whether such an accepted written work appears in a formal proceedings or whether the organizers declare that such work “counts as a publication”.
The above definition does not consider an arXiv.org paper as a publication because it cannot be rejected. It also excludes university technical reports which are typically not peer reviewed. However, this definition of publication does include peer-reviewed workshop papers, even if they do not appear in a proceedings, if their length is more than four pages (excluding citations). Given this definition, any submission to ICCV should not have substantial overlap with prior publications or other concurrent submissions.
Note that a technical report (departmental, arXiv.org, etc.) version of the submission that is put up without any form of direct peer-review is NOT considered prior art and should NOT be cited in the submission.
A submission with substantial overlap is one that shares 20 percent or more material with previous or concurrently submitted publications. Such submissions will be considered plagiarism (self or otherwise). Please refer to the IEEE Guidelines for Handling Plagiarism for more information.
Attendance responsibilities: The authors agree that if the paper is accepted, at least one of the authors will register for the conference and present the paper there.
Publication: All accepted papers will be made publicly available by the Computer Vision Foundation (CVF) two weeks before the conference. Authors wishing to submit a patent understand that the paper's official public disclosure is two weeks before the conference or whenever the authors make it publicly available, whichever is first. The conference considers papers confidential until published two weeks before the conferences, but notes that multiple organizations will have access during the review and production processes, so those seeking patents should discuss filing dates with their IP council. The conference assumes no liability for early disclosures. More information about CVF is available athttps://www.thecvf.com.
Publicity, social media: Papers submitted to ICCV must not be discussed with the press until they have been officially accepted for publication. Work explicitly identified as an ICCV submission also may not be advertised on social media. Please see the FAQ below for more details. Violations may result in the paper being rejected or removed from the conference and proceedings.
All submissions will be handled electronically via the conference's CMT Website. By submitting a paper, the authors agree to the policies stipulated in this website. The paper and author registration deadline is March 10, 2021, the submission deadline is March 17, 2021. Supplementary material can be submitted until March 24, 2021.
Papers are limited to eight pages, including figures and tables, in the ICCV style. Additional pages containing only cited references are allowed. Please refer to the following files for detailed formatting instructions:
- Example submission paper with detailed instructions Download
- LaTeX Templates (zip): iccv2021AuthorKit.zip Download
- LaTeX Templates (zip): iccv2021RebuttalKit.zip Download
Papers that are not properly anonymized, or do not use the template, or have more than eight pages (excluding references) will be rejected without review.
1) Paper submission and review site:
Submission Site (now open)
Please add "email@example.com" to your list of safe senders (whitelist) to prevent important email announcements from being blocked by spam filters.
It is the primary author's responsibility to ensure that all authors on their paper have registered their institutional conflicts into CMT. Each author should list domains of all institutions they have worked for, or have had very close collaboration with, within the last 3 years (example: mit.edu; ox.ac.uk; microsoft.com). DO NOT enter the domain of email providers such as gmail.com. This institutional conflict information will be used in conjunction with prior authorship conflict information to resolve assignments to both reviewers and area chairs. If a paper is found to have an undeclared or incorrect institutional conflict, the paper may be summarily rejected.
4) Creating a paper submission: This step must be completed by the paper registration deadline. After this deadline, you will not be able to register new papers, but you will be able to edit the information for existing papers.
(a) Click the “+ Create new submission” button in the upper-left to create a new submission. There, you will be prompted to enter the title, abstract, authors, and subject areas. You are strongly encouraged to finalize the author list by the registration deadline.
(b) Check with your co-authors to make sure that: (1) you add them with their correct CMT email; and (2) they have entered their domain conflicts into CMT for ICCV 2021. If you add an author with an email that is not in CMT and the name and organization is not automatically filled, that means they are not yet in the system, and you should make sure to check that they do not already have an account under a different email before completing the requested information to add them.
(c) Enter subject (topic) areas for your paper. You must include at least one primary area. This information is used to help assign ACs and reviewers.
5) Paper Number
Once you have registered your paper (i.e. title/authors), you will be assigned a paper number. Insert this into the latex or word template before generating the pdf of your paper for submission. Papers submitted without a number may not be reviewed.
6) Submission Requirements:
The maximum size of the abstract is 4000 characters.
The paper must be PDF only (maximum 50MB). Make sure your paper meets the formatting and anonymity requirements described above.
The supplementary material can be either PDF or ZIP only (maximum 100MB).
7) Supplementary Material Submission: By the supplementary material deadline, the authors may optionally submit additional material that was ready at the time of paper submission but could not be included due to constraints of format or space. The authors should refer to the contents of the supplementary material appropriately in the paper. Reviewers will be encouraged to look at it, but are not obligated to do so.
Supplementary material may include videos, proofs, additional figures or tables, more detailed analysis of experiments presented in the paper, or a concurrent submission to ICCV or another conference. Itmay not include results on additional datasets, results obtained with an improved version of the method (e.g., following additional parameter tuning or training), or an updated or corrected version of the submission PDF. Papers with supplementary materials violating the guidelines may be summarily rejected.
8) Code Submission and Reproducibility: To improve reproducibility in AI research, we highly encourage authors to voluntarily submit their code as part of supplementary material. Authors should also use the Reproducibility Checklist as a guide for writing reproducible papers. Reviewers are encouraged to check the submitted code to ensure that the paper’s results are trustworthy and reproducible. The code should be anonymized, e.g., author names, institutions and licenses should be removed. We do not expect authors to submit private/sensitive data, only sufficient data to demonstrate the method. All code/data will be reviewed confidentially and kept private.
Detailed supplementary material guidelines:
(a) All supplementary material must be self-contained and zipped into a single file. The following formats are allowed: avi, mp4, pdf, wmv. CMT imposes a 100MB limit on the size of this file. Note that you can update the file by uploading a new one (the old one will be deleted and replaced).
(b) The paper for review (PDF only) must be submitted first before the supplementary material (PDF or ZIP only) can be submitted.
After receiving the reviews, authors may optionally submit a rebuttal to address the reviewers' comments, which will be limited to a one page PDF file using the "ICCV 2021 Rebuttal Template" which can be downloaded from this link:
iccv2021RebuttalKit.zip. (link to attachment)
The rebuttal must maintain anonymity and cannot include external links that reveal the author identity or circumvent the length restriction.
Responses longer than one page will simply not be reviewed. This includes responses where the margins and formatting are deemed to have been significantly altered from those specified by the style guide.
The author rebuttal is optional and is meant to provide you with an opportunity to rebut factual errors or to supply additional information requested by the reviewers. It is NOT intended to add new contributions (theorems, algorithms, experiments) that were absent in the original submission and NOT specifically requested by the reviewers. You may optionally add a figure, graph or proof to your rebuttal to better illustrate your answer to the reviewers' comments.
Per a passed 2018 PAMI-TC motion, reviewers should refrain from requesting significant additional experiments for the rebuttal, or penalize for lack of additional experiments. Authors should refrain from including new experimental results in the rebuttal, especially when not specifically requested to do so by the reviewers.
Q. Can we please have an extension on the deadline?
A. NO. And any incomplete submission or a submission not meeting the required criteria will be deleted.
Q. Can we get my quota increased for the size of paper submission from 30 MB to something higher?
A. NO. We have set hard limits of 30MB (PDF Only) for paper submission and 100MB (PDF or ZIP only) for supplementary materials for submissions for review. As we are expecting many submissions, and as each reviewer is expected to review multiple papers, larger file downloads (and uploads) will tax the system and abilities of reviewers to get to the papers fast enough. Authors should consider adding hi-res images as supplementary material (see supplementary material guidelines).
Q. How do I delete Supplementary Material from the CMT site?
A. After you log in, in the "Author" console, you'll notice "Upload/Delete File" at the end of the supplementary file name. Click on that, and in the page that appears, you can click on the "Delete" button to remove the supplementary file. (Please note that you will not be able to delete the supplementary file after the supplementary material deadline.)
Q. Can we submit color images with our papers for review?
A. YES. Reviewers will get the exact pdf file of the paper you submitted, so they can see the color images on the screen. Do be warned though that many reviews still like to read printed papers and not all have access to high-end color printers. Please make sure to comment in the paper to request the reviewers to see the color online copy.
Q. What is ICCV 2021 policy on DUAL SUBMISSIONS?
A. Please read the dual/double submission section above.
Q. Does a Technical Report (departmental, arXiv, etc.) available online count as a prior publication, and therefore is that work ineligible for review and publication at ICCV 2021?
A. Please read the dual/double submission section above.
Q. Does a document on GitHub or other open repositories count as a publication, and therefore is ineligible for review and publication at ICCV 2021?
A. Submissions to GitHub and similar repositories cannot be rejected and are accepted by default before any "review" that can take place on such platforms. Given definitions in the dual/double submission paragraph above, GitHub documents are not publications and won't be treated as such. To preserve anonymity, you should not cite your public codebase. You can say that the code will be made publicly available.
Q. Does a presentation at a departmental seminar during the review period violate the anonymity standard or other ICCV 2021 policy?
A. NO. Authors must properly anonymize the written submission as per the guidelines. There is no requirement that the material otherwise be kept confidential during the review process.
Q. Can I promote my paper in the press or on social media?
A. As stated in the instructions above, authors are not allowed to go to the press with their submission prior to the end of the review process, or to advertise their work on social media while explicitly identifying it as an ICCV submission. In recent conference cycles, some authors were found posting about their submissions on Twitter or other social media, and even including the title or a snapshot of the paper. This is a violation of anonymity, since the message may go out to many potential reviewers.
Authors must not:
- Talk to the media about your work as "in submission to ICCV"
- Make any posts to social media or elsewhere that can be linked to a specific ICCV submission (e.g., mentioning the title of the submission or details and content and saying that it's an ICCV submission)
- Talk about their work in a presentation without saying it's submitted to ICCV
- Submit to arXiv without mentioning ICCV
A paper may be rejected if the program chairs feel that the authors have attempted to let potential reviewers know who wrote the paper.
Q. How do I cite my results reported in open challenges?
A. To conform with the double blind review policy, you can report results of other challenge participants together with your results in your paper. For your results, however, you should not identify yourself and should not mention your participation in the challenge. Instead present your results referring to the method proposed in your paper and draw conclusions based on the experimental comparison to other results.
Q. Does my submission need to cite arXiv papers that are related to my work?
A. Consistent with good academic practice, you need to cite all sources that inspired and informed your own work. This said, asking authors to thoroughly compare their work with arXiv reports that appeared shortly before the submission deadline imposes an unreasonable burden. We also do not wish to discourage the publication of similar ideas that have been developed independently and concurrently. Authors and reviewers should keep the following guidelines in mind:
- Authors are not required to discuss and compare their work with recent arXiv reports, although they must properly cite those that inspired them.
- To reduce confusion, whenever citing papers that initially appeared on arXiv, the authors should check whether those papers had subsequently been published in a peer-reviewed venue, and to cite those versions accordingly.
- Failing to cite an arXiv paper or failing to beat its performance SHOULD NOT be sole grounds for rejection.
- Reviewers SHOULD NOT reject a paper solely because another paper with a similar idea has already appeared on arXiv. If the reviewer suspects plagiarism or academic dishonesty, they are encouraged to bring these concerns to the attention of Area and Program Chairs.
- It is acceptable for a reviewer to suggest that an author should acknowledge or be aware of something on arXiv.
Q. Is the ICCV 2021 Review Process CONFIDENTIAL?
A. YES, ICCV 2021 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.
Q. Are ICCV 2021 Reviews Double BLIND or Single BLIND?
A. ICCV reviewing is Double BLIND, in that authors do not know the names of the area chairs/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.