Papers conforming to the guidelines described below should be uploaded to the
3DV 2015 Submission Website (CMT)
Submission deadline: June 7, 2015 - 23.59 GMT
Supplementary materials: June 12, 2015 - 23.59 GMT.
The file size limit for the main paper is 30MB and 100MB for the supplementary material.
Reviews shall be made available to authors July 21, 2015, final notification to authors August 15, 2015.
All accepted papers will be published by Computer Society’s Conference Publishing Services (CPS) and submitted to IEEE Xplore and CSDL.
- Detailed paper formatting instructions: 3d2015_for_review.pdf
- LaTeX/Word template: 3dv2015authorkit.zip
A complete paper should be submitted in PDF format with no more than 9 pages in length and should adhere to the formatting guidelines described in the above links. It should describe original work within the topics of interest of 3DV. Papers with more than 9 pages or not following the formatting instructions will be rejected without review.
Anonymity: All reviewing will be double blind, so the paper must not include any information which allows the authors to be identified. For example, this might require that some references to the authors’ previous work be left blank or that authors refer to their previous work in the third person. This is not optional. Papers that provide obvious identifying information will be rejected without review.
Confidentiality: 3DV 2015 reviewing is considered confidential. All reviewers are required to treat every manuscript they review as a confidential document and not to share or distribute materials under review for any reason other than to facilitate the reviewing of the submitted work. Reviewers are obligated to remove or destroy them after review.
Dual Submission: The 3DV conference publishes original, peer-reviewed, full papers. It does not accept dual submissions. By submitting a manuscript to 3DV 2015, the authors assert that it has not been previously published in substantially similar form. Furthermore, no paper which contains significant overlap with the contributions of this paper either has been or will be submitted during the 3DV 2015 review period to either a journal or a conference. 3DV also applies strict rules on plagiarism.
Supplementary Material: Supplemental material (additional PDF file, video) can also be uploaded to the submission site after you have created the paper entry and uploaded the PDF file. To ensure that the reviewers consult this material, please ensure that the file is easily readable with common players and codecs and correctly referred in the paper. Remember that the reviewers are NOT obliged to view the video, so it is to your advantage to make their life as easy as possible by ensuring its easy readability: details of format, tested player and version, codec, timing, etc. Please remember that the video contents should also be anonymized.
If necessary, authors are invited to contact program chairs using the following email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Thank you for serving on the program committee of 3DV 2015 as a reviewer. Publications in conferences have a critical impact on scientific careers in our fields. Reviews on which acceptance or reject decisions are made are therefore of critical importance and should be written carefully. We ask that you take your duty seriously and have your reviews ready on time (July 8). The following instructions (adopted from CVPR 2015) will provide some basic guidelines in performing your reviews.
- June 7 Paper Submissions Deadline
- June 18 Reviewers receive paper assignments
- July 16 Reviews are due
- July 25 Author rebuttal due
- July 26-July 31 ACs + reviewers discuss rebuttal, see if any reviewers change their opinion
- Aug 15 Final decision released to authors
Check your papers for conflicts
As soon as you get your reviewing assignment, please download your papers and go through them to make sure that there is no obvious conflict with you (e.g., a paper authored by your recent collaborator from a different institution). If you feel you are in conflict with a paper, please let us know right away by emailing the Program Chairs (email@example.com).
What to Look For
Look for what’s good or stimulating in the paper. Minor flaws can be corrected and shouldn’t be a reason to reject a paper. 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. Acceptance and rejection decisions should not be determined solely by the method’s raw performance. Rather, it is important to weigh both the novelty and potential impact of the work alongside the reported performance. Each paper that is accepted should be technically sound and make a contribution to the field.
Authors were asked to take reasonable efforts to hide their identities, including not listing their names or affiliations and omitting acknowledgments. This information will of course be included in the published version. Reviewers should also make all efforts to keep their identity invisible to the authors. Please see the Author Guidelines for details on how authors have been instructed to preserve anonymity, including guidelines for referencing one’s own prior work.
Please be specific and detailed in your reviews. 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, including books, or public disclosures of techniques.
Your main critique of the paper should be written in terms of a list of strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Use bullet points here, and explain your arguments. Your discussion, sometimes more than your score, will help the authors, fellow reviewers, and Area Chairs understand the basis of your opinions, so please be thorough. Your reviews will be returned to the authors, so you should include specific feedback on ways the authors can improve their papers. For more suggestions on writing your reviews, read the section below on Writing Technical Reviews.
When You’re Done
Submissions should be treated as confidential. When you have finished with your review, you should destroy any paper manuscript and/or supporting material you received.
Writing Technical Reviews
Here are some recommendations that may help you as you do this very valuable task.
We volunteer our time by reviewing papers that are written by other researchers in our field. We recommend that you approach your reviews in this spirit of volunteerism. Your reviews make you a gatekeeper in helping decide which papers are ready for publication. Just as important, however, is to provide feedback to the authors so that they may improve their work. Try to write your review in a way that the authors can benefit from. We suggest reading a paper and then thinking about it over the course of several days before you write your review.
The tone of your review is also important. A harshly written review will be disregarded by the authors, regardless of whether your criticisms are true. If you take care, it is always possible to word your review diplomatically while staying true to your thoughts about the paper. 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.
Here are some specific issues to keep in mind as you write your reviews:
- Short reviews are unhelpful to authors, other reviewers, and Area Chairs. If you have agreed to review a paper, you should take enough time to write a thoughtful and 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.
- Don’t give away your identity by asking the authors to cite several of your own papers.
- 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.
- If you think the paper is out of scope for 3DV’s subject areas, clearly explain why in the review. You may find the Call for Papers here (http://www.3dv.org/call-for-papers/) . Then suggest other publication possibilities (journals, conferences, workshops) that would be a better match for the paper.
- Avoid referring to the authors by using the phrase “you”. These phrases should be replaced by “the authors” or “the paper”. Referring to the authors as “you” can be perceived as being confrontational, even though you do not mean it this way.
- Be generous about giving the authors new ideas for how they can improve their work. Your suggestions may be very specific (for example, “this numerical solver would be better for your application”) or may be more general in nature. You might suggest a new dataset that could be tried, or a new application area that might benefit from their tool. You may tell them how their idea can be generalized beyond what they have already considered. A thoughtful review not only benefits the authors, but may benefit you as well. Remember that your reviews are read by other reviewers and especially the Area Chairs, in addition to the authors. Being a helpful reviewer will generate good will towards you in the research community.
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 add your name to (were it not anonymous).
Handling papers not in your specific area
3DV is a smaller conference (we hope to have around 200 submissions), but involves the very broad topic of 3D Vision that spans both computer vision and computer graphics. Paper assignments are done by Area Chairs who rely on their knowledge of your work as well as the match of submitted paper and your subject areas. It is very likely you will be assigned a paper that may be slightly out of your specific research area. In such cases, we ask that you do the best you can to review the paper. We trust your ability to distinguish between good papers and those that are not yet ready for acceptance.