Your assigned papers are now available at https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/BMVC2019.
Please check them and notify us at email@example.com of any suspected conflicts, violations, or other concerns ASAP by Friday, May 17 latest.
The deadline for completing the reviews is Monday, June 10th. For full dates see: https://bmvc2019.org/dates/
ICCV has some rather good advice for writing reviews. If you need such advice, please read the reviewer guidelines (http://ICCV2019.thecvf.com/submission/main_conference/reviewer_guidelines) and the brief ICCV Reviewer Tutorial (http://ICCV2019.thecvf.com/files/reviewer/HowtoReviewforICCV.pptx).
Many of you are authors of BMVC paper as well and you expect timely, fair, and informative reviews from your colleagues. Please do the same for papers that have been assigned to you.
BMVC2019 received a record number of submission, just over 1000. However, some were withdrawn after submission and many were desk rejected. We now have 824 papers to review with 840 Reviewers.
We require 3 reviews per paper so the average review load per reviewer is 3-5 papers.
With regards reviewing policy:
We have done our best to desk reject any obvious dud papers but given the large number of submissions some may have crept through. Papers that do not adhere to the paper submission policy (https://bmvc2019.org/authors/submit-your-paper/) should be rejected. This is mainly page length and formatting style.
We were quite strict on over length papers but we did let papers that exceeded the 9 page limit by a few lines (up to 5-6) through.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The 9 page limit is only for main text. References and appendices do not count.
In the case of a few papers an appendix (or appendices) of a few pages is present.
Due to ambiguous wording on the BMVC2019 submissions page, we felt we had to let these papers through.
Reviewers and Area Chairs may wish to make suggestions how the final paper, if accepted, may look with or without the appendices.
With regards ArXiv submissions, whilst discouraging publication on ArXiv prior to the completion of the review process, we adopt the same policy as CVPR:
We realise that with the increase in popularity of publishing technical reports and ArXiv papers, sometimes the authors of a paper may be known to the reviewer. As per CVPR (2015 PAMI-TC meeting), ArXiv papers are NOT considered prior work since they have not been peer reviewed. Therefore, you should review your BMVC papers independently as if the ArXiv papers didn’t exist. Citations to these papers are not required and failing to cite or beat performance of arXiv papers are NOT grounds for rejection. Please read the FAQ below for guidelines on handling ArXiv papers. An important general guideline is to make every effort to treat papers fairly whether or not they know (or suspect) who wrote them. There are some specific examples in the Reviewer FAQs below. Reviewers should not search for the authors of a paper, and complain that the paper is not anonymous if they happen to find them.
Citations to these papers are not required and failing to cite or beat performance of arXiv papers are not grounds for rejection. For example:
- It is Not OK for a reviewer to suggest rejection for not citing an arXiv paper or not being better than something on arXiv.
- It is Not OK to accept a paper solely because it performs better than something on arXiv.
- It is Not OK to reject a paper solely because it performs worse than something on arXiv.
- It is Not OK to regard arXiv as a standard for the state of the art, because it is not reviewed. This applies whoever wrote the arXiv paper.
- It is Not OK for a reviewer to reject a paper solely because another paper with a similar idea has already appeared on arXiv. If the reviewer is worried about plagiarism they should bring this up in confidential comments to the AC.
- It is OK for a reviewer to suggest an author should acknowledge and be aware of something on arXiv.
- It is OK for an author to decline to acknowledge something on arXiv (because it has not been reviewed and so may not be right).
Reviewers should make every effort to treat each paper fairly, whether or not they know who wrote the paper.
For example: It is Not OK for a reviewer to read a paper, think “I know who wrote this; it’s on arXiv; they’re usually quite good” and accept paper based on that reasoning. Conversely, it is also Not OK for a reviewer to read a paper, think “I know who wrote this; it’s on arXiv; they’re no good” and reject paper based on that reasoning.
- To do by Friday May 17:
- Download your assignments from CMT and check for any potential conflicts or other problems.
- Go to https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/BMVC2019/ and open your Reviewer Console. You should see all your assigned papers. To download the PDFs, click on the “Actions” button in the top right and select “Download Files”. Or you can download individual papers by clicking the links underneath the respective titles.
- Check your assignments for any conflicts that may have slipped through the institutional domain system in CMT. If you recognise the source/authors of a paper (e.g., from seeing it on arXiv), it is still fine for you to review it, unless you feel that you absolutely cannot judge the work fairly.
- Notify the Program Chairs (firstname.lastname@example.org) if you think you are conflicted with a paper or find other potential violations
- (anonymity, plagiarism, double submission). We checked the papers for obvious violations, but there is still a non-zero chance you may find problems. You may also notify us if you feel that you are not qualified to review a paper due to area mismatch, although we trust that most reviewers have the breadth and experience to do the right thing for papers a little bit outside their main areas of expertise.
- To do by Monday June 10:
- Complete the reviews for all your assigned papers. Before you do the reviews, be sure to familiarise yourselves with the complete reviewer guidelines mentioned
- We hope that you will be able to manage your time so as to complete your reviews on time.
- Failure to turn in your assignments on time will potentially delay the entire BMVC review process.
Please note following a successful trial introduced at BMVC2018, we are NOT operating a paper rebuttal period again this year.
Once again, we thank you in advance for your help in writing thoughtful and well-founded reviews for all your assigned papers. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at email@example.com.
Please note that there will a prize – sponsored by Dyson: A Robot Vacuum Cleaner – for the best two paper reviewers. Other top reviewers will be acknowledged on the BMVC2019 web site.
David Marshall, Majid Mirmehdi, Bernie Tiddeman and Xianghua Xie
BMVC 2019 Program Chairs