FAQs

Updates:

  • Feb 21, 2024: Further clarified the requirements for the paper registration deadline.
  • Feb. 21, 2024: Added a clarification for authors without DBLP-indexed publications.
  • Feb. 11, 2024: Added a clarification on abstract length.
  • Jan. 26, 2024: Added a clarification on review visibility.

 

About Submitting Papers and Supplementary Material

Q. What does paper registration deadline mean? What do I need to do before then?

A. Before the paper registration deadline, you need to create a submission in CMT, add a title and an abstract for your paper, add all your co-authors, and complete the submission questions. All authors must have entered their domain conflicts and their DBLP ID in their CMT user profile.

Q. I do not have a DBLP ID. What should I do?

A. If you have never published a paper that is indexed by DBLP, you may leave the DBLP ID field in your user profile empty. If, on the other hand, you have published papers that are indexed by DBLP, you must enter your DBLP ID in your user profile in CMT.

Q. Can we please have an extension on the paper registration or submission deadline?

A. NO. Furthermore, any incomplete submission or a submission not meeting required criteria will be deleted.

Q. Can I update my paper’s information (e.g., title, abstract, author list) after the paper registration deadline?

A. You can update the title and abstract until the paper submission deadline. You can also reorder the author list until the paper submission deadline. However, after the paper registration deadline, you can no longer create new paper submissions or add/delete authors of your submission(s).

Q. Can I add/remove authors after my paper has been accepted?

A. NO. After the paper registration deadline, the author list is considered final. Changes to the authorship order may be done freely between the registration and submission deadlines. Further changes to the authorship order following acceptance may be considered, but only in special circumstances.

Q. Are acknowledgements permitted in the submitted paper?

A. NO, acknowledgements should only be included in the camera-ready paper.

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 ECCV style for any supplementary PDFs as well, but this is not a must. Formatting supplementary documents in a double-column layout is permitted.

Q. Can I link to an external webpage from my ECCV submission?

A. This is strongly discouraged because it runs a high risk of violating anonymity or the media ban, or circumventing length or deadline restrictions. If you feel you absolutely must link to external materials, see the next question.

Q. Can I link to additional image or video material from the supplementary material?

A. Only if absolutely necessary and as long as the double-blind review process and deadline integrity are preserved. To that end, authors need to ensure the following conditions: (1) The image and video material is too large to include in the supplementary file size limit. (2) The hosting site and the linked material does not reveal the identity and affiliation of the authors. (3) The hosting site or apps do not track or identify who viewed the materials. (4) The authors provide a smaller-sized version of their image or video material in the submitted supplementary material.

Condition 4 ensures that reviewers have a direct way of viewing the material (albeit at a lower quality) and are also able to verify that the externally hosted material has not been modified since the supplementary material deadline.

Authors bear the responsibility and are advised to proceed with caution not to break the double-blind review process. Note, not all hosting services are available in all regions. Authors should also note that, just like for the supplementary material itself, reviewers are under no obligation to review such additional image or video material.

Q. Is there a formal length restriction on the abstract?

A. No, but the abstract should concisely summarize the contents of the paper. While there is no fixed length restriction for the abstract, it is recommended to limit your abstract to approximately 150 words.
 

About Preprints, Anonymity, and Media Promotion

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 ECCV 2024?

A. Please read the dual submission policy above.

Q. Does a document on GitHub or other open repositories count as a publication, and therefore is ineligible for review and publication at ECCV 2024?

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 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 media promotion policy?

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

Q. Can I list my ECCV 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 ECCV submissions on public websites or on media (see below).

Q. Can I post my submission on arXiv?

A. Yes. But you cannot label it as a submission to ECCV. (However, note that accepted ECCV 2024 papers that did not appear on arXiv prior to the decision announcement will be specially recognized at the conference. Please see the Submission Policies for details.)

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

A. Yes, you may. But you cannot mention that the paper is under submission to ECCV.

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

A. Yes, you may. But you cannot mention that the paper is under submission to ECCV.

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.

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 the area and program chairs.
  • It is acceptable for a reviewer to suggest that an author should acknowledge or be aware of something on arXiv.
     

The anonymity policy and its interpretation

Aligned with general policies of the other main computer vision conferences, ECCV uses the following policy regarding interactions with the media: “Any paper explicitly identified as a (planned) submission to ECCV 2024 during the embargo period will be summarily rejected without review (during the review process) or will be removed from the conference and the proceedings (in the case that a paper was initially accepted).”

Q. How will the program chairs (PCs) interpret this policy?

A. The PCs consider any article, post, website, etc. that explicitly states that a certain paper will be submitted to ECCV 2024, has been submitted to ECCV 2024, or is under review at ECCV 2024 to violate this policy. Consequently, the corresponding paper will be rejected / removed from the conference and the proceedings. This policy is enforced from the start of the embargo period (December 22nd, 2023) until acceptance / rejection decisions have been announced.

Q. Does this policy prevent authors from discussing their paper with the media or on social media?

A. No, this policy does not prevent authors from discussing their paper with the media or on social media as long as the authors do not explicitly state that the paper will be / has been submitted to ECCV 2024, is currently under review at ECCV 2024, etc.

Q. What is the motivation behind this policy?

A. The motivation behind this policy is to take steps towards ensuring that author identities are not made known to reviewers and area chairs. We acknowledge that with papers being posted on arXiv and being discussed on social media, it is impossible to fully ensure the blindness of the review process. Yet, it seems to be the will of (parts of) the community to allow this. The policy thus aims at avoiding cases where it is 100% clear that the authors are communicating that their paper will be / has been submitted to ECCV or is under review at ECCV. We consider such cases as clear violations of the anonymity policy that are not covered by common practices in the community.

Q. Who will see the reviews of my submission?

A. Reviews will only be visible to the authors, the reviewers, the area chairs involved in a paper, and the program chairs.
 

About Datasets

Q. I use a private dataset for my experiments that I cannot distribute publicly. Can I still submit a paper?

A. YES, you can absolutely submit a paper. You simply cannot claim the dataset as one of the paper’s contributions. The paper must stand on its other scientific merits (e.g., its technical contribution).

Q. I wish to claim a dataset contribution in my paper and release the dataset, but the data is not ready for release at paper submission time. Is this a problem?

A. NO, you can make minor modifications to the dataset until the camera-ready deadline, but the paper should contain sufficient information to allow the reviewers to verify the claims of the paper. Moreover, the scientific conclusions based on the dataset at submission time must be sound and must continue to hold. However, you must provide a link to the dataset when submitting the camera ready.

Q. I wish to claim a dataset contribution in my paper and release the dataset, but the data may/will not be ready for release at the camera-ready deadline. Is this an issue?

A. YES, it is the expectation that your dataset will be ready and available at the time when submitting the camera ready, since at this point the paper that describes the dataset is considered final as well. 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.

Q. I plan to release a dataset with my paper, but my dataset website requires users to create a log-in or otherwise request permission, before they can access the dataset. Is this permitted?

A. YES, this is permitted as long as you do not unreasonably withhold or delay access to members of the research community.

Q. Releasing the dataset is not fully under my control, e.g., because it still needs to be approved by an institutional review board (or equivalent). What should I do?

A. We recommend waiting with your submission until you have obtained the appropriate approval. Alternatively, you can submit the paper but without claiming the dataset as one of the major scientific contributions.

Q. Are there any specific license requirements for dataset contributions?

A. NO, the expectation is that the data is available for research use by members of the research community.
 

About the Attribution of Assets (Datasets & Code)

Q. Do I need to attribute assets that I used in my paper?

A. YES, you should treat assets such as datasets or code just like scientific papers.

Q. Do I really need to cite ALL assets that I have been using? For example, do I need to include a citation to Python, since I used Python to write my code?

A. NO, you should cite research assets. Use good judgment, just like you would for citations of previous scientific work. As an example, most papers will happily make use of the Gaussian distribution without making reference to Carl Friedrich Gauss. Similarly, it is fine to use general purpose programming languages or widely used programming tools without explicit citation. Research datasets or specific algorithms, even if widely used such as ImageNet or Adam, call for a citation, on the other hand.

Q. Do I need to include URLs of assets?

A. You are encouraged, but not required to do so. Including a URL is particularly sensible if the asset is not widely used or if the URL is not easily associated with the paper that introduced the asset.

Q. Do I need to discuss the licensing terms / copyright terms of the assets?

A. You are not required but encouraged to do so. It should go without saying that assets should be used in accordance with their license / copyright terms. Including information on the licensing terms / copyright terms shows that authors carefully considered this.
 

About Personally Identifiable Data / Human Subjects

Q. I use personally identifiable data or data from human subjects and I obtained IRB (or similar) approval. Do I need to include proof of approval?

A. NO. At submission time it is sufficient to state that you obtained IRB approval (either in the paper or in the supplemental material). Do not include any material that would identify your institution or de-anonymize your submission in another way.

Q. I use personally identifiable data or data from human subjects, but my IRB (or similar) approval is not completed. What should I do?

A. We recommend holding off on a submission. Note also that changes in the experimental protocol mandated by the IRB can no longer be accommodated once the paper has been submitted.

Q. I use personally identifiable data or data from human subjects, yet I do not / cannot get IRB approval, e.g. as my institution does not have an IRB. What should I do?

A. Carefully describe in your paper or supplemental material how you ensure that the collection and use of data follows the ethical principles set up in the ethics guidelines. One possible path would be to obtain clearance from an independent IRB service.

Q. I have a specific application, which makes it difficult to obtain consent for data collection. What should I do?

A. Explain your situation either in your paper or in the supplemental material and ensure to include sufficient information to support that you followed the ethical principles set up in the ethics guidelines.

Q. Can my paper get rejected for an inappropriate use of personal data or data from human subjects?

A. We want to increase awareness in the ECCV community of this important issue, hence asking authors to give information on the use of such data. Reviewers will be asked to flag any significant ethical concerns. These will be referred to an ethics committee, which will assess the situation and advise the program chairs. The program chairs reserve the right to reject papers with grave ethical issues, but expect this to occur only in exceptional circumstances.

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. Under some circumstances, authors may feel they need to use such datasets — for example, if fair comparison is impossible in any other way. However, authors who use such datasets should always explain the need to do so carefully and in some detail as such claims will be carefully scrutinized. 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 reviewer or area chair to require comparison on a dataset that has been withdrawn without a detailed consultation with PCs or ombuds.

Q. My research relies on broadly used public datasets of others, which have not been withdrawn, but for which it is unclear if they have been approved by an IRB. Is this allowed?

A. In the case of broadly used datasets that are still offered by their creators, for which IRB approval status is unclear, authors are encouraged to discuss the situation in the paper, e.g. why no better alternatives are available.
 

About Potential Negative Societal Impact

Q. Does a paper automatically get rejected if it has a potential negative impact?

A. NO, technologies often have two sides. We encourage authors to discuss this, because it is beneficial for the community to be aware of this issue.
 

About Code Submission

Q. Is a code submission required?

A. NO, it is completely optional. But we encourage code submissions to aid reproducibility.

Q. Does submitted code need to be anonymized?

A. ECCV is a double blind conference, so authors should make a reasonable effort to anonymize the submitted code and data. This means that author names, institution names (also in copyright / license statements), etc. should be removed. If the paper gets accepted, we expect the authors to replace the submitted code by a non-anonymized version or link to a public and properly anonymized GitHub repository.

Q. Are anonymous GitHub links allowed?

A. YES. However, they have to be on a branch that will not be modified after the submission deadline. Please enter the GitHub link in a standalone text file in a submitted ZIP file.

Q. How will the submitted code be used for decision-making?

A. The submitted code will be used as additional evidence provided by the authors to add more credibility to their results. We anticipate that high-quality papers whose results are judged by our reviewers to be credible will be accepted to ECCV, even if code is not submitted. However, if something is unclear in the paper, then code, if submitted, will provide an extra chance for reviewers to verify it.

Q. If code is submitted, do you expect it to be published with the rest of the supplementary? Or, could it be withdrawn later?

A. YES, we expect submitted code to be published with the rest of the supplementary. However, if the paper gets accepted, then the authors will get a chance to update the code before it is published by adding author names, licenses, etc. The authors also have the option to replace the submitted code with a GitHub link.

Q. Do you expect the code to be standalone? For example, what if it is part of a much bigger codebase?

A. We expect your code to be readable and helpful to reviewers in verifying the credibility of your results. It is possible to do this through code that is not standalone - for example, with proper documentation.

Q. My code requires a dataset that is too large to include as part of the supplemental material. Can I provide an anonymous link to the dataset?

A. Similar to links to anonymous code repositories on GitHub, it is permitted to provide anonymized links to datasets that are required to execute the code. Such links must not allow the discovery of the authors’ identity in any way. Moreover, such anonymous data storage must not allow authors to discover who accessed the data in any way

Q. What about pseudocode instead of code? Does that count as code submission?

A. Yes, we will count detailed pseudocode as code submission as it is helpful to reviewers in validating the credibility of your results.

Q. Do you expect authors to submit data?

A. We understand that many of our authors work with highly sensitive datasets, and are not asking for private data submission. If the dataset used is publicly available, there is no need to provide it. If the dataset is private, then the authors can submit a toy or simulated dataset to illustrate how the code works.

Q. Who has access to my code? For how long?

A. Only the program chairs, the technical chairs, and the reviewers and area chairs assigned to your paper will have access to your code. We will instruct reviewers and area chairs to keep the code submissions confidential (just like the paper submissions), and delete all code submissions from their machine at the end of the review cycle. Please note that code submission is also completely voluntary.

Q. I would like to revise my code/add code during the rebuttal period. Is this permitted?

A. Unfortunately, no. But please remember that code submission is entirely optional.
 

About LLMs

ECCV adopts the LLM Policy of CVPR 2024.

Q. What is the LLM Policy for authors in ECCV 2024?

A. Authors may use any tools they find productive in preparing a paper, but must be aware that they are responsible for any misrepresentation, factual inaccuracy or plagiarism in their paper. Papers containing citations of non-existent material will be rejected when found, and may be rejected without review. Similarly, papers containing obvious factual inaccuracies will be rejected when found and may be rejected without review. It is not a defense to a charge of plagiarism or of inaccuracy to argue that “an LLM did it”. You are responsible for what you submit.

Q. How will the LLM policy be implemented?

A. Referees who find inaccuracies should act as they usually would; as should area chairs. Glaring examples of citations to non-existent material can be desk-rejected.

Q. What is the LLM Policy for referees in ECCV 2024?

A. Referees may use any device, including an LLM, to polish their review wording, but must vouch for, and be responsible for, the accuracy of the review. It is a significant act of referee misconduct to allow an LLM to see a submission. PCs interpret showing a submission to an LLM as a deliberate referee violation of confidentiality. The PCs reserve the right to report reviewer misconduct to future computer vision conferences. These conferences then may take actions, e.g., there was a recent PAMI-TC vote that CVPR reviewer misconduct may lead to a 2-year submission ban.

Q. What is the reasoning behind the LLM policy?

A. The action that most likely affects the credibility of ECCV is using an LLM to write the summary of the paper. The summary is a necessary part of reviewing, because it compels the reviewer to show what they think the paper is about, and so validates the review. A summary that has been polished by an LLM which hasn’t seen the paper is acceptable, as long as the referee vouches for the review. A summary that has been prepared by an LLM – so one where the LLM sees the paper - is profoundly damaging, because it may allow a review to be prepared without the referee trying to understand the paper.

Q. How will the LLM policy be implemented?

A. An author may complain to their AC that a summary (and/or other parts of the review) have been prepared by an LLM that has seen the paper. Such a complaint would need to be supported by an example summary (or other part of the review) prepared by the author giving the paper to an LLM. If this matches the referee’s comments sufficiently, ACs will pass the complaint on to PCs who are then entitled, but not required, to act. Complaints must not appear on the rebuttal, but be submitted on a separate form. PCs strongly discourage frivolous complaints. Authors should be aware that a complaint to an AC about a review prepared by an LLM without reasonable evidence in support of that complaint, is wasting the ACs time.