Participation Instructions
Attendees are invited to apply to present their work. While paper submission is open to those that identify as women, all genders are invited to attend the workshop.
Important Dates
March 9th 2023: Extended Abstract Submission Deadline
March 9th 2023: Full Paper Submission Deadline
April 1st 5th 2023: Acceptance Notification
April 7th 12th 2023: Camera-Ready Deadline
June 19th, 2023: Workshop & Mentoring Event
All deadlines are at 11:59 PM Anywhere On Earth (AoE) on the given date.
Submission Instructions
Extended Abstracts: We encourage primarily female-identifying (undergraduate and graduate) students, post-docs, and junior researchers in all areas of computer vision to submit a short paper (2 pages excluding references) describing new, previously, or concurrently published research or work-in-progress.
Full Length Papers: The workshop will offer the opportunity to publish full length papers in the workshop proceedings (4-8 pages excluding references). These papers should describe new work that has not been previously published, accepted for publication, or submitted for review at another venue during our review period. The accepted papers will appear in the CVPR workshops proceedings and IEEE Xplore. These papers will also be in the Computer Vision Foundation (CVF) open access archive.
The reviewing process is double-blind.
Authors of all accepted papers will be invited to present their work in a poster session, and a few in an oral session.
The presenter need not be the first author of a submission.
While all presenters will identify primarily as female, all genders are invited to attend the workshop .
We encourage presenters of all genders to highlight the contribution of the female authors, particularly the presenting author.
Submission page: https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/WiCVatCVPR2023/
Paper template: For both types of submissions please use the final CVPR paper template.
Resume: Resume submission is optional, and will not be used to evaluate submission. Accepted posters and orals will be selected solely based on the submission. If you choose to share your resume with industry sponsors, you should upload it to CMT on the submission page.
Attendance awards: If you wish to be considered for a attendance grant, please mark 'yes' to the question 'Are you applying for a travel stipend?' when submitting your paper on CMT. Those participants indicating ‘yes’ will receive a follow-up email linking to the grant application form.
Reviewer Guidelines
In addition to the guidelines below, you should read this CVPR2023 Reviewer Tutorial, which is providing a summary of tips to be a good CVPR reviewer along with tips on what to include and avoid when writing your reviews. These tips are also applicable to the WiCV Workshop.
Reviewing Timeline
(TBA)
Blind Reviews
Our Author Guidelines have instructed authors to make reasonable efforts to hide their identities, including omitting their names, affiliations, and acknowledgments. This information will of course be included in the final published version of the manuscript. Likewise, reviewers should make all efforts to keep their identity invisible to the authors.
With the increase in popularity of arXiv preprints, sometimes the authors of a paper may be known to the reviewer. Posting to arXiv is NOT considered a violation of anonymity on the part of the authors, and in most cases, reviewers who happen to know (or suspect) the authors’ identity can still review the paper as long as they feel that they can do an impartial job. An important general principle is to make every effort to treat papers fairly whether or not you know (or suspect) who wrote them. If you do not know the identity of the authors at the start of the process, DO NOT attempt to discover them by searching the Web for preprints.
Check your papers
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 feel comfortable to review the paper assigned. If issues with either of these points arise, please let us know right away by emailing the WiCV Program Chairs (wicvcvpr2023-organizers@googlegroups.com).
Please read the [Submission Instruction] carefully to familiarize yourself with all official policies (such as dual submission and plagiarism). If you think a paper may be in violation of one of these policies, please contact the WiCV Chairs. In the meantime, proceed to review the paper assuming no violation has taken place.
What to Look For
Each paper that is accepted should be technically sound and make a contribution to the field. Look for what is good or stimulating in the paper. In particular, look for what new knowledge advancement the paper made. We recommend that you embrace novel, brave concepts, even if they have not been tested on many datasets. For example, the fact that a proposed method does not exceed the state-of-the-art accuracy on an existing benchmark dataset is not grounds for rejection by itself. Rather, it is important to weigh both the novelty and potential impact of the work alongside the reported performance. Minor flaws that can be easily corrected should not be a reason to reject a paper.
Check for Data Contribution
Datasets are a significant part of Computer Vision research. If a paper is claiming a dataset release as one of its scientific contributions, it is expected that the dataset will be made publicly available no later than the camera-ready deadline, should it be accepted. Please indicate in the corresponding field in the review form whether the paper made such claims and whether the corresponding field in the submission form has been marked.
Check for Attribution of Data Assets
Authors are advised that they need to cite data assets used (e.g., datasets or code) much like papers. As a reviewer, please carefully check if a paper has adequately cited data assets used in the paper, and comment in the corresponding field in the review form.
Check for Use of Personal Data and Human Subjects
If a paper is using personal data or data from human subjects, the authors must have an ethics clearance from an institutional review board (IRB, or equivalent) or clearly describe that ethical principles have been followed. If there is no description of how ethical principles were ensured or GLARING violations of ethics (regardless of whether discussed or not), please inform the WiCV Chairs, who will follow on each specific case. Reviewers shall avoid dealing with such issues by themselves directly.
IRB reviews for the US or the appropriate local ethics approvals are typically required for new datasets in most countries. It is the dataset creators' responsibility to obtain them. If the authors use an existing, published dataset, we encourage, but do not require them to check how data was collected and whether consent was obtained. Our goal is to raise awareness of possible issues that might be ingrained in our community. Thus we would like to encourage dataset creators to provide this information to the public.
In this regard, if a paper uses an existing public dataset that is released by other researchers/research organizations, we encourage, but not require them to include a discussion of IRB related issues in the paper. Reviewers hence should not penalize a paper if such a discussion is NOT included.
Check for Discussion of Negative Societal Impact
The CVPR community has not put as much emphasis on the awareness of possible negative societal impact as other AI communities so far, but this is an important issue. We aim to raise awareness without introducing a formal policy (yet). As a result, authors are encouraged to include a discussion on potential negative societal impact. Reviewers shall weigh the inclusion of a meaningful discussion POSITIVELY. Reviewers shall NOT reject a paper solely based on that the paper has not included such a discussion as we do not have a formal policy requiring that.
Check for Discussion of Limitations
Discussing limitations used to be commonplace in our community, but seems to be increasingly lost. We point out the importance of discussing limitations especially to new authors. Therefore, authors are encouraged to explicitly and honestly discuss limitations. Reviewers shall weigh the inclusion of an honest discussion POSITIVELY, instead of penalizing the papers for including it. We note that a paper is not required to have a separate section to discuss limitations, so it can not be a sole factor for rejection.
Be Specific
Please be specific and detailed in your reviews. Your main critique of the paper should be written in terms of a list of strengths and weaknesses. You can use bullet points here, but also explain your arguments. A single short sentence or a few words do NOT suffice. Your discussion, more than your score, will help the authors, fellow reviewers, and WiCV Chairs understand the basis for your recommendation, so please be thorough. You should include specific feedback on ways the authors can improve their papers.
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: You MUST cite specific publications, including books or public disclosures of techniques. If you do not provide references to support your claim, the Chairs are forced to discount it.
Ethics for Reviewing Papers
1. Protect Ideas
As a reviewer for the CVPR WiCV Workshop, you have the responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the ideas represented in the papers you review. CVPR WiCV submissions are not published documents. The work is considered new or proprietary by the authors; otherwise they would not have submitted it. Of course, their intent is to ultimately publish to the world, but most of the submitted papers will not appear in the CVPR Workshop proceedings. Thus, it is likely that the paper you have in your hands will be refined further and submitted to some other journal or conference. Sometimes the work is still considered confidential by the authors' employers. These organizations do not consider sending a paper to CVPR for review to constitute a public disclosure. Protection of the ideas in the papers you receive means:
You should not show the paper to anyone else, including colleagues or students, unless you have asked them to write a review, or to help with your review.
You should not show any results, videos/images, code or any of the supplementary material to non-reviewers.
You should not use ideas/code from papers you review to develop your own ideas/code.
After the review process, you should destroy all copies of papers and supplementary material and erase any code that the authors submitted as part of the supplementary, and any implementations you have written to evaluate the ideas in the papers, as well as any results of those implementations.
2. Avoid Conflict of Interest
As a reviewer of a CVPR WiCV Workshop paper, it is important for you to avoid any conflict of interest. There should be absolutely no question about the impartiality of any review. Thus, if you are assigned a paper where your review would create a possible conflict of interest, you should return the paper and not submit a review. Conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) situations in which:
You work at the same institution as one of the authors.
You have been directly involved in the work and will be receiving credit in some way. If you're a member of an author's thesis committee, and the paper is about his or her thesis work, then you were involved.
You suspect that others might perceive a conflict of interest in your involvement.
You have collaborated with one of the authors in the past three years (more or less). Collaboration is usually defined as having written a paper or grant proposal together, although you should use your judgment.
You were the MS/PhD advisor or advisee of one of the authors. Most funding agencies and publications typically consider advisees to represent a lifetime conflict of interest. CVPR has traditionally been more flexible than this, but you should think carefully before reviewing a paper you know to be written by a former advisor or advisee, especially a recent one.
While the organizers make every effort to avoid such conflicts in the review assignments, they may nonetheless occasionally arise. If you recognize the work or the author and feel it could present a conflict of interest, email the Chairs (wicvcvpr2023-organizers@googlegroups.com) as soon as possible so they can find someone else to review it.
3. Be Professional
Belittling or sarcastic comments have no place in the reviewing process. The most valuable comments in a review are those that help the authors understand the shortcomings of their work and how they might improve it. Write a courteous, informative, incisive, and helpful review that you would be proud to sign with your name (were it not anonymous).
Additional Tips for Writing Good Reviews
Take the time to write good reviews. Ideally, you should read a paper and then think about it over the course of several days before you write your review.
Short reviews are unhelpful to authors, other reviewers, and Chairs. If you have agreed to review a paper, you should take enough time to write a thoughtful and detailed review. Bullet lists with one short sentence per bullet are NOT a detailed review.
Be specific when you suggest that the writing needs to be improved. If there is a particular section that is unclear, point it out and give suggestions for how it can be clarified.
Be specific about novelty. Claims in a review that the submitted work “has been done before” MUST be backed up with specific references and an explanation of how closely they are related. At the same time, for a positive review, be sure to summarize what novel aspects are most interesting in the Strengths section.
Do not reject papers solely because they are missing citations or comparisons to prior work that has only been published without review (e.g., arXiv or technical reports).
Do not give away your identity by asking the authors to cite several of your own papers.
If you think the paper is out of scope for CVPR WiCV Workshop's subject areas, clearly explain why in the review. Then suggest other publication possibilities (journals, conferences, workshops) that would be a better match for the paper. However, unless the area mismatch is extreme, you should keep an open mind, because we want a diverse set of good papers at the conference.
The tone of your review is important. A harshly written review will be resented by the authors, regardless of whether your criticisms are true. If you take care, it is always possible to word your review constructively while staying true to your thoughts about the paper.
Avoid referring to the authors in the second person (“you”). It is best to avoid the term “the authors” as well, because you are reviewing their work and not the person. Instead, use the third person (“the paper”). Referring to the authors as “you” can be perceived as being confrontational, even though you may not mean it this way.
Be generous about giving the authors new ideas for how they can improve their work. You might suggest a new technical tool that could help, a dataset that could be tried, an application area that might benefit from their work, or a way to generalize their idea to increase its impact.
Finally, keep in mind that a thoughtful review not only benefits the authors, but also yourself. Your reviews are read by other reviewers and especially the Chairs, in addition to the authors. Unlike the authors, the Chairs know your identity. Being a helpful reviewer will generate good will towards you in the research community.
CMT Instructions
Once you've been notified by email that papers have been assigned to you, please log into the CMT site (TBA), choose the “Reviewer” role on top, and follow the steps below.
1. Download your papers.
To download individual papers, you can click the links underneath individual paper titles. Or, you can click the “Actions” button in the top right corner and then choose “Download Files”. This allows you to download a ZIP file containing all the papers plus supplementary files (if available).
2. Check for possible conflict or submission rule violations.
Contact the Chairs (wicvcvpr2023-organizers@googlegroups.com) immediately if:
You think you are conflicted with the paper (see the section entitled “Avoid Conflict of Interest” above).
You think the paper violates submission rules regarding anonymity, double submission, or plagiarism (please refer to the Author Guidelines for precise definitions of what is and isn’t considered acceptable). In the meantime, go ahead and review the paper as if there is no violation. The Chairs will follow up, but this may take a bit of time.
Attendance Awards
Attendance grants will be awarded to a select number of accepted papers. Unfortunately, we are unable to guarantee award grants to all accepted papers. Final grant amounts will depend on the number of applications received and will be announced after paper acceptance notifications. The grants can be used for any expenses incurred from attending the workshop virtually. Grant recipients will be asked to provide receipts for expenses prior to receiving their award. The reimbursements will be sent shortly after the workshop.
Registration Instructions
WiCV is a CVPR workshop, so your registration for it is handled via the CVPR website. Make sure your CVPR registration includes workshops. Information on CVPR registration is available here: https://cvpr2023.thecvf.com/.