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. 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 means:
-
You should not show the paper to anyone else, including colleagues or students unless you have permission from the program chairs.
-
You should not show any results or videos/images or any of the supplementary material to non-reviewers.
-
You should not use ideas from papers you review to develop your own ideas.
-
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.
2. Avoid Conflict of Interest
As a reviewer of an ICCV paper, 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 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 perceive a conflict of interest in your involvement.
-
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 or student of one of the authors, or you studied under the same advisor. Most funding agencies and publications typically consider these to represent a lifetime conflict of interest. ICCV has traditionally been more flexible than this, but you should think carefully before reviewing a paper you know to be written by a former advisor or advisee, especially a recent one.
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 (programchairs-iccv23@googlegroups.com) as soon as possible so they can find someone else to review it.
3. Large Language Model (LLM) Ethics
ICCV’23 does not allow the use of Large Language Models or online chatbots such as ChatGPT in any part of the reviewing process. There are two main reasons: (a) Reviewers must provide comments that faithfully represent their original opinions on the papers being reviewed. It is unethical to resort to Large Language Models (e.g., an offline system) to automatically generate reviewing comments that do not originate from the reviewer’s own opinions; (b) Online chatbots such as ChatGPT collect conversation history to improve their models. Therefore their use in any part of the reviewing process would violate the ICCV confidentiality policy.
4. 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 sign with your name (were it not anonymous).