ECCV 2012 Review process

ECCV 2012 REVIEW PROCESS
The process is traditional but for two main innovations:   We eliminated the in-person plenary AC meeting (with some regret). Those meetings have become too big and expensive, and much of the feedback has been that the most valuable part of the meeting is the discussion in pairs.  Having successfully experimented with Area Chair (AC) triplets for BMVC 2011,  we replaced the meeting with AC triplets who will meet in person (or online) and produce ranked lists of ~90 papers. The final consolidation of the lists will be done by the PCs in consultation with the ACs.

Additional features/innovations

1. We will use the unique author ID systems provided by Microsoft/Google to identify authors and reviewers, avoiding problems with multiple individuals having the same name.     This data will also inform conflict identification.  We will use the UToronto topic modelling software to provide reviewer suggestions to ACs.
2. ACs prepare a “draft consolidation” before the authors’ rebuttal.   This allows the authors to focus on issues that the AC considers important, and helps to ensure that new information is not introduced into the reviews after the rebuttal.
3. The review scores now explicitly reflect that oral papers have higher scores.  The old system led to inconsistent scoring: reviewers who obey the rubric will assign “definite accept” (i.e. score=1) to a clear poster; reviewers who believe the overall rating is a score will give score=1 only to orals.

IMPORTANT DATES