Policies

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 organization 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 of the work are registered on CMT together with all their institutional conflicts declared. If a paper is found to have undeclared or incorrect author or institutional conflict information, the paper may be summarily rejected. After the paper submission deadline, the list of authors will be final. After that date, new authors CAN NOT be added; authors MAY NOT be removed. Changes to the authorship order will be permitted only in exceptional circumstances. (Also see the Submission Guidelines). Even after the publication, if a violation of the rule is found, for example, declaring a different set of authors for an ICCV paper at personal websites or public scholar databases with manipulations (e.g., Google Scholar), a published paper may be retracted from ICCV.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism consists of appropriating the words or results of another, without credit. ICCV 2023'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.

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. Note that a technical report (departmental, arXiv.org, etc.) version of a submission is allowed (see Dual/Double Submissions section below), however, such reports should NOT be cited by the submission, as such citations will likely reveal the identity of the authors.

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. Authors are encouraged to cite technical reports (e.g., arXiv papers) written by others, while this is optional and the lack of references to such technical reports does not become a reason for rejection. 

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) 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 at https://www.thecvf.com.

Publicity, social media: ICCV submissions, as well as work having substantial overlap with these submissions (such as arXiv preprints) must not be discussed with the press or promoted by the authors on social media until they have been officially accepted for publication. Violations may result in the paper being summarily rejected or removed from the conference and proceedings. 

For the purposes of ICCV 2023, social media promotion, actively initiated by the authors, is prohibited during a media silence period starting four weeks before the paper submission deadline, until the final paper decision notifications are sent to authors, i.e., from 02/08/2023 to 07/13/2023. Please see the FAQ on the Author Guidelines for more details on this policy.

Authors acting as reviewers: Given the growth of the number of paper submissions, we expect all authors to be willing to serve as reviewers if asked to do so and follow the Reviewer Guidelines.

Dataset contributions: Datasets are a significant part of Computer Vision research. If a paper 1) promises a dataset release and/or 2) claims a dataset as scientific contributions to the community, it is expected that the dataset will be made publicly available no later than the camera-ready deadline, should it be accepted. A failure to do so may lead to the paper rejection. Authors must specify “dataset contributions” in a checkbox on the submission system when the paper makes such claims.

Note that this does NOT imply that all datasets used in ICCV submissions must be public. The use of private or otherwise restricted datasets (e.g. for training or experimentation) continues to be permitted. However, private or otherwise restricted datasets cannot be claimed as contributions of the paper as they do not become available to the scientific community.