{"id":829,"date":"2011-12-21T17:54:33","date_gmt":"2011-12-21T17:54:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/eccv2012.unifi.it\/?page_id=829"},"modified":"2012-04-03T19:28:57","modified_gmt":"2012-04-03T19:28:57","slug":"eccv-2012-review-process","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/eccv2012.unifi.it\/documents\/eccv-2012-review-process\/","title":{"rendered":"ECCV 2012 Review process"},"content":{"rendered":"

ECCV 2012 REVIEW PROCESS<\/strong>
\nThe process is traditional but for two main innovations: \u00a0\u00a0We eliminated the in-person plenary AC meeting <\/strong>(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. \u00a0Having successfully experimented with Area Chair (AC) triplets for BMVC 2011, \u00a0we replaced the meeting with AC triplets <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n

Additional features\/innovations<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  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. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0This data will also inform conflict identification. \u00a0We will use the UToronto topic modelling software to provide reviewer suggestions to ACs.<\/li>\n
  2. ACs prepare a \u201cdraft consolidation\u201d before <\/em>the authors\u2019 rebuttal. \u00a0\u00a0This 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.<\/li>\n
  3. The review scores now explicitly reflect that oral papers have higher scores. \u00a0The old system led to inconsistent scoring: reviewers who obey the rubric will assign \u201cdefinite accept\u201d (i.e. score=1) to a clear poster; reviewers who believe the overall rating is a score will give score=1 only to orals.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    IMPORTANT DATES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    DATE (2012)<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\naction<\/em>\/event<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nNotes<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Feb 2012 or before<\/td>\nEvery researcher who wishes to be considered for reviewing or submission registers with Google Scholar & Microsoft Academic, and submits his\/her unique ID
    \nEach AC triplet arranges two meetings, one in the period 13-21 March, one in the period 29 May-10 June.<\/td>\n    		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    5 March 2012<\/td>\nEVENT: authors submit<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    5-12 March<\/td>\nPC assigns papers to AC triplets, possibly tweaking triplet partition<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    12 March<\/td>\nEVENT: papers to ACs<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    12-22 March<\/td>\nACs meet and, suggest 7+ reviewers \/ paper
    \nEVENT: AC TRIPLET MEETINGS<\/strong><\/td>\n    		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    22 March<\/td>\nEVENT: ACs supply reviewer proposals<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    22-26 March<\/td>\nPC makes final reviewer assignment<\/td>\nMatching suggestions, conflicts, load balancing<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    4 April<\/td>\nEVENT: Papers to reviewers<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    4 April – 11 May<\/td>\nReviewers write reviews<\/td>\nReview period<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    11 May<\/td>\nDEADLINE: Return reviews<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    11-21 May<\/td>\nACs go over reviews, initiate discussions<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    21 May<\/td>\nEVENT:
    \nReviews to authors<\/strong><\/td>\n    		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    21-28 May<\/td>\nAuthors write rebuttals<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    28 May<\/td>\nEVENT: Authors submit rebuttals<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    28 May – 11 June<\/td>\nACs read rebuttals, update consolidation reports, rank their 90 papers, produce thresholds for oral and poster<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    11-17 June<\/td>\nPC looks at consolidations, spot problems, interact with AC triplets to obtain missing info.
    \nCombine lists, suggests shifts of thresholds to AC triples if needed. \u00a0Finalizes oral\/poster\/reject on agreement of ACs.<\/td>\n    		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    17 June<\/td>\nEVENT: ACs finalize consolidations<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\nPCs check consolidations<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    < 25 June<\/td>\nEVENT: Author notification<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    ECCV 2012 REVIEW PROCESS The process is traditional but for two main innovations: \u00a0\u00a0We 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 … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":827,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"sidebar-page.php","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/eccv2012.unifi.it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/829"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/eccv2012.unifi.it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/eccv2012.unifi.it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/eccv2012.unifi.it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/eccv2012.unifi.it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=829"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"http:\/\/eccv2012.unifi.it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/829\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1033,"href":"http:\/\/eccv2012.unifi.it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/829\/revisions\/1033"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/eccv2012.unifi.it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/827"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/eccv2012.unifi.it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}