2 Conferences CVPR – Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, since 1983 Annual, held in USICCV – International Conference on Computer Vision, since 1987Every other year, alternate in 3 continentsECCV – European Conference on Computer Vision, since 1990Every other year, held in Europe
3 Conferences (cont’d) NIPS – Neural Information Processing Systems MICCAI – Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted InterventionBMVC – British Machine Vision ConferenceACCV – Asian Conference on Computer VisionICPR – International Conference on Pattern RecognitionISBI – International Symposium on Biomedical ImagingFG – IEEE Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture RecognitionICCP, ICDR, ICVS, DAGM, CAIP, MVA, AAAI, IJCAI, ICML, ICRA, ICASSP, ICIP, SPIE, DCC, WACV, 3DPVT, ACM Multimedia, ICME, …
4 Conference organization General chairs: administrationProgram chairs: handling papersArea chairs:Assign reviewersRead reviews and rebuttalsConsolidation reportsRecommendationReviewersAuthors
5 Review process Submission CVPR/ECCV/ICCV Author Response (Rebuttal) Double blind reviewProgram chairs: assign papers to area chairsArea chairs: assign papers to reviewersAuthor Response (Rebuttal)
6 Area chair meetings 2 day meetings Several panels Each paper is reviewed by at least 2 area chairsBuddy systemArea chair make recommendationsProgram chairs make final decisions
8 JournalsPAMI – IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, since 1979 (impact factor 2009: 5.96, #1 in all engineering and AI, top-ranked IEEE and CS journal)IJCV – International Journal on Computer Vision, since 1988 (impact factor: 5.36, #2 in all engineering and AI)
9 Journals (cont’d) CVIU – Computer Vision and Image Understanding IVC – Image and Vision ComputingIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingTIP – IEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingMVA – Machine Vision and ApplicationsPR – Pattern RecognitionTM – IEEE Transactions on Multimedia…
10 PAMI review processEditor-in-chief (EIC) assigns papers to associate editors (AE)AE assigns reviewersFirst-round review: 3-6 monthsAccept as isAccept with minor revision (1 month revision period)Major revision (3 months revision period)Resubmit as newReject
11 PAMI review process (cont’d) Second-round review: 2-4 monthsAccept as isAccept with minor revisionRejectEIC makes final decisionOverall turn-around time: 6 to 12 monthsRule of thumb: 30% additional work beyond a CVPR/ICCV/ECCV paper
12 IJCV/other journal review process Similar formatsIJCV has roughly the same turn-around time as PAMIOther journals tend to have shorter turn-around time
13 Tools • Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Search, h-index Software: publish or perishDisclaimer:h index = significance?# of citation = significance
14 How to get your papers rejected? Refer to Jim Kajia (SIGGRAPH 93 papers chair): How to get your SIGGRAPH paper rejected?Do notPay attention to review processPut yourself as a reviewer perspectivePut the work in right contextCarry out sufficient amount of experimentsCompare with state-of-the-art algorithmsPay attention to writing
15 Pay attention to review process Learn how others/you can pick apart a paperLearn from other’s mistakesLearn how to write good papersLearn what it takes to get a paper published
16 Put yourself as reviewer What are the contributions?Does it advance the science in the filed?Why you should accept this paper?Is this paper a case study?Is this paper interesting?What is the audience?Does anyone care about this work?
17 Experimental validation Common data setKiller data setLarge scale experimentEvaluation metric
18 Compare with state-of-the-art Do your homeworkNeed to know what is out thereNeed to show why one’s methodoutperforms others, and in what way?speed?accuracy?easy to implement?general application?
19 Writing Clear presentation Terse (Concise and Precise) Careful about wordingMake claims with strong evidenceMake a good story
20 Review form Summary Overall Rating Novelty Importance/relevance Definite accept, weakly accept, borderline, weakly reject, definite rejectNoveltyVery original, original, minor originality, has been done beforeImportance/relevanceOf broad interest, interesting to a subarea, interesting only to a small number of attendees, out of CVPR scope
21 Review form (cont’d) Clarity of presentation Technical correctness Reads very well, is clear enough, difficult to read, unreadableTechnical correctnessDefinite correct, probably correct but did not check completely, contains rectifiable errors, has major problemsExperimental validation– Excellent validation or N/A (a theoretical paper), limited but convincing, lacking in some aspects, insufficient validationAdditional commentsReviewer’s name
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.