Author FAQs

About Submitting Papers and Supplementary Material

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 50 MB to something higher?

A. NO. We have set hard limits of 50MB (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. Can I add/remove authors after my paper has been accepted?

A. NO. After the paper submission deadline, the author list is considered final. 

Q. Are there any formatting requirements for PDFs in the supplementary material?

A. No. The important thing is that supplementary PDFs are legible and neatly formatted. Many authors choose to use the official ICCV style for any supplementary PDFs as well, but this is not a must. Formatting supplementary documents in a single-column layout is permitted.

About the Review Process

Q. Is the ICCV 2023 Review Process CONFIDENTIAL?

A. YES, ICCV 2023 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 2023 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 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.

About Anonymity

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 2023?

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 2023?

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 or social media promotion policy?

A. It does not. Presentation of material at an academic talk, without mentioning it as being in submission to ICCV, is acceptable.

Q. Can I list my ICCV submission in an application for a job or graduate program?

A. Yes. As long as you communicate this information confidentially and to a small group of people, it is OK. However, you should not list ICCV submissions on public websites or on social media (see below).

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. 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.

About Social Media Policy

Q. Can I promote my paper in the press or on social media?

A. No. ICCV 2023 follows the social media policy and its specifics of recent CVPR/ECCV conferences. Please read the following FAQs for more information.

Q. Can I post about my work on social media without mentioning it as being in submission to ICCV?

A. No. The current policy is stricter than the policy adopted in some previous years, under which it was acceptable to post about an arXiv preprint with the same title as a ICCV submission, as long as the authors refrained from explicitly stating that the work is “in submission to ICCV”. Under the new policy, authors can be found in violation as long as their post can be easily linked to a specific ICCV submission.

Q. Can I post my submission on arXiv? 

A. Yes, as long as the arXiv preprint does not refer to the work as being in submission to ICCV and does not link to any material (videos, webpages) that can be interpreted as social media posts (see below).

Q. Can I have a video link in my arXiv paper?

A. Yes, you may and it is not considered a violation of the social media ban, as long as the video (or a link of the video) is not posted on any social media platform, and it does not contain any information that would otherwise link it to your ICCV submission. In addition, if your video is hosted on a video platform that behaves similarly to a social media platform (such as YouTube, Douban, or Blibli) then your video post must be unlisted and have comments disabled.

Q. Can I build a project website related to my arXiv paper?

A. Yes, you may and it is not considered a violation of the social media ban, as long as the url of the project website is not posted on any social media platform, and the project website itself does not contain any information that would otherwise link it to your ICCV submission.

Q. arXiv tweets new papers. Is that a violation of the social media policy?

A. No. This is an automatic process and does not constitute the authors promoting their work. arXiv tweets are largely followed by experts in the field and not the general public. The work is presented in its entirety and a pre-publication and can be judged as such. This differs from, for example, promotional videos posted on social media.

Q. What if the PR department of my company/university writes about my work without me being involved? What if my friends/colleagues do it?

A. Technically, only active promotion by the authors themselves is banned. However, all authors should avoid the appearance of trying to circumvent the ban via loopholes or behind-the-scenes promotion. If you have any influence on your PR department or your colleagues, you are urged to ask them to refrain from posting about your work. Any questionable social media posts that are brought to the attention of the organizers will be investigated and may be found in violation.

Q. Can I respond to someone else’s press article or social media post about my work?

A. You should err on the side of caution. If such a response makes it easy to establish your identity, then it will be considered a violation of anonymity and proactive engagement with social media on the paper. Posting pseudonymously, if it is clear that it is the author posting, could still be considered a proactive engagement with social media.

About Datasets

Q. My research uses datasets that have been withdrawn by their creators, such as DukeMTMC-ReID or MS-Celeb-1M. What should I do?

A. Generally, papers should not use datasets that have been withdrawn by their creators, as doing so may involve ethical violations or even legal complications. Note that in many cases alternative datasets exist. The recommended course should be to not use the dataset, and (if necessary) explain that this may affect certain comparisons with prior art. It is a violation of policy for a referee or area chair to require comparison on a dataset that has been withdrawn.

Q. I wish to claim a dataset contribution in my paper, but I either cannot release the data publicly, or am not sure I will be able to do so by the time of publication. Is this an issue?

A. YES. If you promise a dataset release or claim a dataset as a contribution, it is expected that your dataset will be ready and available at the time you will be submitting the camera ready paper. If you cannot ensure that you can meet this deadline, then the release of the dataset should not be one of the major scientific contributions of your paper. Note that it is still acceptable to submit work relying on a non-public dataset – you just cannot claim that dataset as one of your contributions, and the paper will have to be evaluated based on its other merits.