Submission Information

Please submit your contribution via the IPCAI submission system

Author Instructions for Regular Papers

Scope of regular papers

To understand if your submission fits in the scope of IPCAI, and for general submission information please refer to the Call for Papers.

Submitting with CMT

All submissions are made using Microsoft’s Conference Management Toolkit (CMT).  One of the paper's authors must be allocated as the corresponding author (also called the 'submitting author') who is responsible for making the CMT submission on behalf of all the co-authors, with permission from all co-authors. The corresponding author is required to already have a CMT account, and they can be the corresponding author for more than one submission.


Papers are submitted by the corresponding author on CMT in 2 steps:

Author guidelines and formatting information

Domain conflicts

CMT uses two mechanisms for domain conflicts: 



The corresponding author must register all domain conflicts by the submission deadline, using both mechanisms, as described here.

The manuscript file

You must respect the following rules when you submit your manuscript to IPCAI using CMT:

1) You should submit your manuscript file on CMT as a single PDF in single column format, using the Springer Nature LaTeX template, and the PDF file must not exceed 12 pages. 

2) IJCARS specifies a limit of 5000 words, however, when you submit to IPCAI, you must respect a 12 page limit, which includes everything (title, abstract, authors, affiliations, keywords, tables, figures, references, captions, decelerations, acknowledgements). Note that  the abstract should be in a structured format (Purpose, Methods, Results and Conclusion), and should not exceed 250 words. 

3) We will not accept submissions using the MS Word template

4) You should used the LaTeX lineno option to print line numbers.


After the IPCAI review process, accepted papers will be transferred to the International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery (IJCARS) for further revisions and published by Springer Nature as a full paper in the IPCAI special Issue of IJCARS. All accepted papers will need to conform to the IJCARS guidelines and requirements for publication.

Submitting supplementary material

Supplementary materials (if any) may be submitted in addition to the manuscript file. We encourage authors to submit supplementary material along with your submission to clarify your contribution with the reviewers, which may include video files. Note that the manuscript file should stand alone, and be fully understood without the need to refer to supplementary material. Supplementary material for accepted papers will only be available online. The supplementary material should conform to the IJCARS guidelines. 

Submission confidentiality

In cases where confidential information is submitted to IPCAI, authors should do the following:

The assignment of reviewers and meta-reviewers will then be performed considering these restrictions. Throughout the review process, your submission will only be visible to the program chairs and the specific area chairs and reviewers responsible for the paper who also signed a confidentiality agreement. All other area chairs and reviewers will not have access to your submission.

Reproducible research

The authors should read and follow our reproducibility guidelines (see below), designed to improve the submission quality and promote reproducible research according to best practices. This will include completing a reproducibility checklist on CMT for your submission. We strongly recommend reading these guidelines prior to submission.  

Review process

Submissions are peer-reviewed in a single-blind process, first by IPCAI (using CMT), and then finally by IJCARS, typically with the same reviewers as IPCAI. We recommend you read the IPCAI reviewer guidelines (see below) before submitting, and consult the conference timeline, so you know what to expect. Your submission to IPCAI will be assigned to two meta-reviewers (primary and secondary), and be sent out for peer-review by qualified experts (typically 3). You will then receive these reviews and two meta-reviews. Based on these reviews, your paper will be given an early decision: either accept, reject, or revise. Accepted submissions will be directly transferred to IJCARS for submission to the IPCAI special issue of IJCARS. If your paper has received a revision, then you are invited to address the reviewer comments, and submit a revised version with a cover letter including responses to reviewer comments and manuscript changes. The revised paper will then be reviewed by the reviewers, meta-reviewers, and a final accept or reject decision will be made. Accepted papers will then be transferred to IJCARS. All accepted papers will enter into a final review stage, conducted by IJCARS.

IPCAI 2024 Reproducibility Checklist 

Checklist motivation


IPCAI is dedicated to publishing high quality, reproducible and responsible research following best practices. Motivated by the success and increasing use of reproducibility checklists in other major conferences, and similarly to IPCAI 2023, we request authors to complete a reproducibility checklist as part of the submission on CMT.


The main purpose of the checklist is to help verify that the materials, methods and analysis presented in an IPCAI paper are clearly defined, and that, ideally, the results and conclusions can be reproduced independently given full access to resources available to the paper's authors. The resources should be described in the paper itself or via supplementary material for additional details (especially, wherever possible, by linking to data, and the software implementations of algorithms and analysis used in the paper).


A good IPCAI paper will strive for the highest level of reproducibility, however, experimental setups described in IPCAI often comprise complex hardware and software setups, and it must be kept in mind that full independent reproducibility cannot always be ensured, despite best efforts by the authors. Access to all materials needed to reproduce results may not be possible, and the use of proprietary systems that are subject to licence restrictions is common in IPCAI.  For instance, reported software run-times require implementation on specific hardware, which is part of the experimental material that would be needed for exact reproduction, which generally cannot be shared. Additionally, the implementation can be so large that checking (or even running) code implementations is often neither sufficient for full reproducibility and unfeasible.  In such cases where full reproducibility is impossible, it is expected that the results are reproducible in principle. That is, when the experimental materials and implementation are not readily available, the paper should be described in sufficient detail that reproducibility would likely be attained given access to such resources by field experts. The checklist questions below are designed to promote this important aspect.  


Reproducibility Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: How are the checklist responses used during the reviewing process?

The checklist is designed to remind authors of items they could address in their submissions to help the reviewers to understand and evaluate the work, similar to a pre-flight checklist or pre-surgery checklist. The checklist responses are visible to reviewers and the review form will ask reviewers to rate a submission with respect to whether the submission includes enough information for reproducibility. However, the reviewers will rate the submission based on the submission itself, not simply based on the checklist responses. Also, the checklist responses are visible to Program Chairs, who might take them into consideration when making the final accept/reject decisions.

Q2: If our paper addresses all the items on the checklist, is that sufficient for reproducibility?

Not necessarily. IPCAI research is quite varied and no checklist could cover all the items necessary to reproduce all papers. Use your best judgement to include items relevant for your work, regardless of whether they are in the reproducibility checklist.

Q3: As the corresponding (submitting) author, am I required to fill out the reproducibility checklist in the full-paper submission form?

Yes. You won’t be able to submit the full paper without filling out the reproducibility checklist first. Note that some items in the checklist may not be relevant to your submission. 

Q4: As the corresponding author, I have completed the checklist in the submission form. Am I required to address those items explicitly in the submission itself (i.e., in the main paper or supplementary material)?

The items from the checklist are not required to be addressed explicitly in a submission, but authors will surely find their submission is of higher quality if they do so for items that are relevant to their work. Please use your best judgement to determine what checklist items are relevant to your work and what items should be addressed explicitly in the submission itself.

Q5: As the corresponding author, should we address checklist items in the main paper or in the supplementary materials?

It depends on which place is more appropriate. For example, important values such as the number of model parameters and the size of training data should be included in the main paper, whereas less important ones can be included in the appendix in supplementary material. This is the same kind of decision you have to make for other types of information such as math formulas. Just remember that reviewers have access to supplementary materials.

Q6: As the corresponding author, should we submit code and/or data as part of supplementary materials?

IJCARS, and the IPCAI special issue, have a type 1 research data policy. That is, where possible and applicable, authors are encouraged to deposit data that support the findings of their research in a public repository. Authors who do not have a preferred repository should consult Springer Nature’s list of repositories and research data policy. The same is true for code, where authors are encouraged to make code that supports findings publicly available, including setup, dependencies and execution instructions. Public code and data links can be referenced in the main text or in the or supplementary materials.  As per the author guidelines. Statements about public access to resources, i.e., data, code or other materials, should be collected in one place: the Declarations section under the 'Data, code and/or material availability' heading, including access links.

Q7: As a reviewer, should I lower my rating of a submission if it doesn’t address some checklist items in the submission?

Please see Q1 above. Reviewers should use their best judgement to determine whether certain checklist items should be addressed in the submission.


Checklist questions


The checklist is closely aligned to the one used at MICCAI 2022 with additional questions relevant for IPCAI. Questions are listed below. Those in black font are from the MICCAI 2022 reproducibility checklist. Questions in red font are specific to IPCAI. Questions should be answered on CMT with ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Not applicable'. An optional free text field can be used for further clarification by the authors.  Some of the new IPCAI questions concerning clinical research and statistical methods have been based on A CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP), and we recommend that you also consult that paper. 

1.  For all experimental setups/studies, check if you include

2.  For all experiments involving users/testers of a system, surveys, or questionnaires, check if you include

3.  For all preclinical experiments e.g., with phantoms, animal studies, or in-silico studies, check if you include

4.  For all clinical studies, check if you include

5. For all hardware and systems, check if you include


6. For all statistical analysis

7. For all models and algorithms, check if you include

8. For all datasets used, check if you include:

9. For all code related to this work that you have made available or will release if this work is accepted, check if you include:

10. For all reported experimental results, check if you include:


Sources

These guidelines use the following sources: 


Reviewer Guidelines for Regular Papers

Firstly, thank you to each person who has volunteered to review for IPCAI 2023! To maintain a high-quality technical program, we rely very much on the time and expertise of our reviewers. 


Pre-review checklist

As soon as you get your reviewing assignment from CMT, please ensure that:


If issues with any of the above points arise, please let the meta-reviewer know right away by contacting them through the CMT system.


What to look for


Writing the review


Post-review checklist

After your review, check that you 


Ethics for reviewing papers


Conflicts of interest

You have a conflict of interest if any one of the following items are true:


Additional Sources

https://cvpr2022.thecvf.com/reviewer-guidelines 

https://miccai2021.org/en/REVIEWER-GUIDELINES.html