![]() Short reviews are unhelpful to the authors and to other reviewers.Here are some specific issues to keep in mind as you write your reviews: Put yourself in the mindset of writing to someone you wish to help, such as a respected colleague who wants your opinion on a concept or a project. If you take care, it is always possible to word your review diplomatically while staying true to your thoughts about the paper. A harshly written review will be disregarded by the authors, regardless of whether your criticisms are true. To do this, you need to carve out some time in your day to think about the paper that you are reviewing. This is the best way to come up with helpful suggestions for improving the paper. "Living" with a paper for a few days gives you time to make thoughtful decisions about it. We suggest reading a paper and then thinking about it over the course of several days before you write your review. Try to write your review in a way that the authors can benefit from your review. Just as important, however, is to provide feedback to the authors so that they may improve their work. Sure, your reviews make you a gatekeeper in helping decide which papers are ready for publication. We recommend that you approach your reviews in this spirit of volunteerism. In technical fields, we volunteer our time by reviewing papers that are written by other researchers in our field. ![]() In many professions, people give back to their community by doing volunteer work. Here are some recommendations that may help you as you do this very valuable task. When you have finished with your review, you should destroy any paper manuscript and/or supporting material you received. For more suggestions on writing your reviews, read the section below on Writing Technical Reviews. Your reviews will be returned to the authors, so you should include any specific feedback on ways the authors can improve their papers. Your discussion, sometimes more than your score, will help the Area Chairs decide which papers to accept, so please be thorough. The Explanation section is the most important of the review. In the discussion of related work and references, simply saying "this is well known" or "this has been common practice in the industry for years" is not sufficient: cite specific publications or public disclosures of techniques. Please be specific and detailed in your reviews. Reviewers must not seek the identity of the authors authors must not bias the review process by suggesting their identities. Note that posting a paper online or giving a public talk does not violate the double-blind policy. ![]() Don't say, "you should have cited my paper from 2006!" Reviewers should also make all efforts to keep their identity invisible to the authors. This information will of course be included in the published version. Authors were asked to take reasonable efforts to hide their identities, including not listing their names or affiliations and omitting acknowledgments. Please familiarize yourself with the information in the Call for Submissions.īlind reviewing is an essential part of CVPR reviewing. Each paper that is accepted should, however, be technically sound and make a substantial contribution to the field. Minor flaws can be corrected and shouldn't be a reason to reject a paper. Look for what's good or stimulating in the paper. Area Chairs will also follow up with you to get clarifications on reviews and as needed, seek consensus on diverging reviews. We will once again be offering an author rebuttal process this year preceding the Area Chair Committee meeting. Contact us also if you find a paper that violates any of the paper submission guidelines. If these issues arise, please respond right away using the system. As soon as you get your reviewing assignment, please go through all the papers to make sure that (a) there is NO obvious conflict with you (e.g., a paper authored by your recent collaborator from a different institution) and (b) you are qualified to review the paper assigned. Adhering to this deadline is extremely important. The Area Chairs have a lot of work to do after the reviews are in. Please read through the rest of this document that provides details on what is expected of you as a member of the Papers Reviewing Committee for CVPR 2013.īased on the published schedule you will have almost a month and half to do your reviews please do not leave them for the last few days near the deadline. Your reviews also help the computer vision community as a whole to improve the quality of its research. Your reviews have a direct and important impact on the quality of an important conference in computer vision. Thank you for agreeing to review a paper for IEEE CVPR 2013.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |