Submission Policies

All authors should carefully review the following policies that govern the submission and review process, as failure to comply with these policies may result in the rejection of your submission as well as possible additional sanctions in the case of dual submissions and plagiarism. In addition, authors are urged to consult ethics guidelines and recommended best practices

Paper formatting: Papers are limited to eight pages, including figures and tables, in the CVPR style. Additional pages containing only cited references are allowed. Please download the CVPR 2023 Author Kit for detailed formatting instructions. 

Papers that are not properly anonymized, or do not use the template, or have more than eight pages (excluding references) will be rejected without review.

Submission and review process: For the first time, CVPR 2023 will be using OpenReview to manage submissions. Consistent with the review process for previous CVPR conferences, submissions under review will be visible only to their assigned members of the program committee (senior area chairs, area chairs, and reviewers). The reviews and author responses will not be public, and we will not be soliciting comments from the general public during the reviewing process. 

Anyone who plans to submit a paper as an author or a co-author will need to create (or update) their OpenReview profile by the full paper submission deadline. By submitting a paper to CVPR, the authors agree to the review process and understand that papers are processed by the OpenReview system to match each manuscript to the best possible area chairs and reviewers.

Detailed instructions on the OpenReview submission process will be made available soon.

Confidentiality: All members of the program committee (program chairs, senior area chairs, area chairs, and reviewers) are instructed to keep all information about their assigned submissions confidential and not to share or distribute materials for any reason except to facilitate the reviewing of the submitted work. Misuse of confidential information is a severe professional failure and appropriate measures will be taken when brought to the attention of the CVPR organizers. It should be noted, however, that all program committee members are volunteers, and the CVPR organization is not and cannot be held responsible for the consequences if confidentiality is broken due to a violation during the review process.

Conflict responsibilities: Anyone who plans to submit a paper as an author or a co-author will need to create or update their OpenReview profile. You will be asked to declare two types of conflicts – domain and personal conflicts – by filling out appropriate sections of your OpenReview profile, as described on the OpenReview instructions page (available soon). If any author of a submission is found to have incomplete or inaccurate conflict information, the submission may be summarily rejected. To avoid undeclared conflicts, the author list is considered final after the paper registration deadline and no changes are allowed for accepted papers.

Double blind review: CVPR reviewing is double blind, in that authors do not know the names of the area chairs or reviewers for their papers, and the area chairs/reviewers cannot, beyond a reasonable doubt, infer the names of the authors from the submission and the additional material. Do not provide information that may identify the authors in the acknowledgments (e.g., co-workers and grant IDs) and in the supplementary material (e.g., titles in the movies, or attached papers). Also do not provide links to websites that identify the authors. Violation of any of these guidelines may lead to rejection without review. If you need to cite any of your own papers that are being submitted concurrently to CVPR or another venue, you should (1) include anonymized versions of those papers in the supplementary material; (2) cite these anonymized papers; and (3) argue in the body of your paper why your CVPR submission is non-trivially different from these concurrent submissions.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism consists of appropriating the words or results of another, without credit. CVPR 2023's policy on plagiarism is to refer suspected cases to the IEEE Intellectual Property office, which has an established mechanism for dealing with plagiarism and wide powers of excluding offending authors from future conferences and from IEEE journals. You can find information on this office, their procedures, and their definitions of five levels of plagiarism at this webpage. We will be actively checking for plagiarism. Furthermore, the paper matching system is quite accurate. As a result, it regularly happens that a paper containing plagiarized material goes to a reviewer from whom material was plagiarized; experience shows that such reviewers pursue plagiarism cases enthusiastically.

Dual Submissions: The goals of CVPR are to publish exciting new work for the first time and to avoid duplicating the effort of reviewers. By submitting a manuscript to CVPR, the authors acknowledge that it has not been previously published or accepted for publication in substantially similar form in any peer-reviewed venue including journal, conference or workshop, or archival forum. Furthermore, no publication substantially similar in content (defined as having 20 percent or more overlap) has been or will be submitted to this or another conference, workshop, or journal during the review period. Violation of any of these conditions will lead to rejection, and will be reported to the other venue to which the submission was sent.

A publication, for the purposes of this policy, is defined to be a written work longer than four pages (excluding references) that was submitted for review by peers for either acceptance or rejection, and, after review, was accepted. In particular, this definition of publication does not depend upon whether such an accepted written work appears in a formal proceedings or whether the organizers declare that such work “counts as a publication.” Under the above definition, arXiv preprints and university technical reports are not considered as publications. However, peer-reviewed workshop papers are considered as publications if their length is more than four pages (excluding references), even if they do not appear in a proceedings. 

Note that a technical report (departmental, arXiv, etc.) version of the submission that is put up without any form of direct peer-review is NOT considered prior art and should NOT be cited in the submission.

Supplementary Material Submission: By the supplementary material deadline, the authors may optionally submit additional material that was ready at the time of paper submission but could not be included due to constraints of format or space. The authors should refer to the contents of the supplementary material appropriately in the paper. Reviewers will be encouraged to look at it, but are not obligated to do so.

Supplementary material may include videos, proofs, additional figures or tables, more detailed analysis of experiments presented in the paper, or a concurrent submission to ICCV or another conference. It may not include results on additional datasets, results obtained with an improved version of the method (e.g., following additional parameter tuning or training), or an updated or corrected version of the submission PDF. Papers with supplementary materials violating the guidelines may be summarily rejected.

We encourage (but do not require) authors to upload their code as part of their supplementary material in order to help reviewers assess the quality of the work. Please see the suggested practices document for more detailed guidelines about code submission.

Personal and human subjects data: If a paper makes use of personal data and/or data from human subjects, including personally identifiable information or offensive content, we expect that the collection and use of such data has been conducted carefully in accordance with the ethics guidelines. In many countries and institutions, the collection and use of personally identifiable data or data from human subjects is subject to approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB, or equivalent). If the use of such data was approved by an IRB, stating this is sufficient. If the use of such data has not (yet) been approved by an IRB, authors should provide information on any pending approval process, how the data was obtained, as well as discuss if and how consent was obtained (or why it, perhaps, could not be obtained). This discussion can be included either in the main paper or in the supplementary material. 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. 

Please see the suggested practices document for more detailed guidelines and FAQs.

Attendance responsibilities: The authors agree that if the paper is accepted, at least one of the authors will register for the conference and present the paper there.

Publication: All accepted papers will be made publicly available by the Computer Vision Foundation (CVF) two weeks before the conference. Authors wishing to submit a patent understand that the paper's official public disclosure is two weeks before the conference or whenever the authors make it publicly available, whichever is first. The conference considers papers confidential until published two weeks before the conference, but notes that multiple organizations will have access during the review and production processes, so those seeking patents should discuss filing dates with their IP council. The conference assumes no liability for early disclosures. More information about CVF is available at http://www.cv-foundation.org/.

Restrictions on publicity and social media: CVPR submissions, as well as work having substantial overlap with these submissions (such as arXiv preprints) must not be discussed with the press or promoted by the authors on social media until they have been officially accepted for publication. Violations may result in the paper being summarily rejected or removed from the conference and proceedings. 

The social media restriction policy is based on the motion passed in the CVPR 2021 PAMI-TC meeting. For the purposes of CVPR 2023, social media promotion, actively initiated by the authors, is prohibited during a media silence period starting four weeks before the paper submission deadline, until the final paper decision notifications are sent to authors, i.e., from 10/14/2022 to 02/27/2023. Please see the FAQ on the details of this policy. 

Authors acting as reviewers: Given the growth of the number of paper submissions, and per the motion passed in the CVPR 2022 PAMI-TC meeting, we expect all authors to be willing to serve as reviewers if asked to do so. To help us identify qualified reviewers, and to match submissions to reviewers, all authors are required to have an up-to-date OpenReview profile (instructions to be provided separately).

 

Rebuttal Policies

After receiving the reviews, the authors may optionally submit a rebuttal to address the reviewers' comments. The rebuttal is limited to a one page PDF file using the rebuttal template included in the CVPR 2023 Author Kit. Responses longer than one page will simply not be reviewed. This includes responses where the margins and formatting are deemed to have been significantly altered from those specified by the style guide.

The rebuttal must maintain anonymity and cannot include external links that reveal the author identity or circumvent the length restriction.

Per a passed 2018 PAMI-TC motion, reviewers should refrain from requesting significant additional experiments for the rebuttal, or penalize for lack of additional experiments. Authors should refrain from including new contributions or experimental results in the rebuttal, especially when not specifically requested to do so by the reviewers. Reviewers are instructed to disregard any such contributions.

Authors can respond to any questions raised about ethics or social impact separately in a text box on the rebuttal form. This text box should only be used for this specific purpose – all other points must be addressed in the rebuttal PDF. Any unrelated technical discussion in this box will be disregarded.

Confidential comments: Authors have the possibility to submit confidential comments to the area chair (meta reviewer) in a text box on the rebuttal form. Please do so only in exceptional circumstances.

 

Author FAQs

About Submitting Papers and Supplementary Material

Q. Can we please have an extension on the paper registration or submission deadline?

A. NO. And any incomplete submission or a submission not meeting required criteria will be deleted.

Q. Can I update my paper’s information (e.g., title, abstract, author list, subject areas) after the paper registration deadline?

A. You can update the title and abstract until the paper submission deadline. However, after the paper registration deadline, you can no longer create new paper submissions or change the author list.

Q. Can I add/remove authors after my paper has been accepted?

A. NO. After the paper registration deadline, the author list is considered final. Changes to the authorship order following acceptance may be considered, but only in special circumstances.

Q. Are there any formatting requirements for PDFs in the supplementary material?

A. No. The important thing is that supplementary PDFs are legible and neatly formatted. Many authors choose to use the official CVPR style for any supplementary PDFs as well, but this is not a must. Formatting supplementary documents in a single-column layout is permitted.

Q. Can I link to additional image or video material from the supplementary material?

A. Only if absolutely necessary and as long as the review double-blind review process and deadline integrity are preserved. To that end, authors need to ensure the following conditions: (1) The image and video material is too large to include in the supplementary file size limit. (2) The hosting site and the linked material does not reveal the identity and affiliation of the authors. (3) The hosting site or apps do not track or identify who viewed the materials. (4) The authors provide a smaller-sized version of their image or video material in the submitted supplementary material.

Condition 4 ensures that reviewers have a direct way of viewing the material (albeit at a lower quality) and are also able to verify that the externally hosted material has not been modified since the supplementary material deadline.

Authors bear the responsibility and are advised to proceed with caution not to break the double-blind review process. Note, not all hosting services are available in all regions. Authors should also note that, just like for the supplementary material itself, reviewers are under no obligation to review such additional image or video material.

About Preprints, Anonymity, and Social Media Promotion

Q. Does a Technical Report (departmental, arXiv, etc.) available online count as a prior publication, and therefore is that work ineligible for review and publication at CVPR 2023?

A. Please read the dual submission policy above.

Q. Does a document on GitHub or other open repositories count as a publication, and therefore is ineligible for review and publication at CVPR 2023?

A. Submissions to GitHub and similar repositories cannot be rejected and are accepted by default before any "review" that can take place on such platforms. Given definitions in the dual submission paragraph above, GitHub documents are not publications and won't be treated as such. To preserve anonymity, you should not cite your public codebase. You can say that the code will be made publicly available.

Q. Does a presentation at a departmental seminar during the review period violate the anonymity or social media promotion policy?

A. It does not. Presentation of material at an academic talk, without mentioning it as being in submission to CVPR, is acceptable.

Q. Can I post about my work on social media without mentioning it as being in submission to CVPR?

A. No. The current policy is stricter than the policy adopted in some previous years, under which it was acceptable to post about an arXiv preprint with the same title as a CVPR submission, as long as the authors refrained from explicitly stating that the work is “in submission to CVPR”. Under the new policy, authors can be found in violation as long as their post can be easily linked to a specific CVPR submission.

Q. Can I post my submission on arXiv? 

A. Yes, as long as the arXiv preprint does not refer to the work as being in submission to CVPR and does not link to any material (videos, webpages) that can be interpreted as social media posts (see below). 

Q. Can I have a video link in my arXiv paper?

A. Yes, you may and it is not considered a violation of the social media ban, as long as the video (or a link of the video) is not posted on any social media platform, and it does not contain any information that would otherwise link it to your CVPR submission. In addition, if your video is hosted on a video platform that behaves similarly to a social media platform (such as YouTube, Douban, or Blibli) then your video post must be unlisted and have comments disabled. 

Q. Can I build a project website related to my arXiv paper?

A. Yes, you may and it is not considered a violation of the social media ban, as long as the url of the project website is not posted on any social media platform, and the project website itself does not contain any information that would otherwise link it to your CVPR submission.

Q. arXiv tweets new papers. Is that a violation of the social media policy?

A. No. This is an automatic process and does not constitute the authors promoting their work. arXiv tweets are largely followed by experts in the field and not the general public. The work is presented in its entirety and a pre-publication and can be judged as such. This differs from, for example, promotional videos posted on social media.

Q. What if the PR department of my company/university writes about my work without me being involved? What if my friends/colleagues do it?

A. Technically, only active promotion by the authors themselves is banned. However, all authors should avoid the appearance of trying to circumvent the ban via loopholes or behind-the-scenes promotion. If you have any influence on your PR department or your colleagues, you are urged to ask them to refrain from posting about your work. Any questionable social media posts that are brought to the attention of the organizers will be investigated and may be found in violation.

Q. Can I respond to someone else’s press article or social media post about my work?

A. You should err on the side of caution. If such a response makes it easy to establish your identity, then it will be considered a violation of anonymity and proactive engagement with social media on the paper. Posting pseudonymously, if it is clear that it is the author posting, could still be considered a proactive engagement with social media.

Q. How do I cite my results reported in open challenges?

A. To conform with the double blind review policy, you can report results of other challenge participants together with your results in your paper. For your results, however, you should not identify yourself and should not mention your participation in the challenge. Instead present your results referring to the method proposed in your paper and draw conclusions based on the experimental comparison to other results.

Q. Does my submission need to cite arXiv papers that are related to my work?

A. Consistent with good academic practice, you need to cite all sources that inspired and informed your own work. This said, asking authors to thoroughly compare their work with arXiv reports that appeared shortly before the submission deadline imposes an unreasonable burden. We also do not wish to discourage the publication of similar ideas that have been developed independently and concurrently. Authors and reviewers should keep the following guidelines in mind:

  • Authors are not required to discuss and compare their work with recent arXiv reports, although they must properly cite those that inspired them.
  • To reduce confusion, whenever citing papers that initially appeared on arXiv, the authors should check whether those papers had subsequently been published in a peer-reviewed venue, and to cite those versions accordingly.
  • Failing to cite an arXiv paper or failing to beat its performance SHOULD NOT be sole grounds for rejection.
  • Reviewers SHOULD NOT reject a paper solely because another paper with a similar idea has already appeared on arXiv. If the reviewer suspects plagiarism or academic dishonesty, they are encouraged to bring these concerns to the attention of area and program chairs.
  • It is acceptable for a reviewer to suggest that an author should acknowledge or be aware of something on arXiv.

About Datasets

Q. My research uses datasets that have been withdrawn by their creators, such as DukeMTMC-ReID or MS-Celeb-1M. What should I do?

A. Generally, papers should not use datasets that have been withdrawn by their creators, as doing so may involve ethical violations or even legal complications. Under some circumstances, authors may feel they need to use such datasets — for example, if fair comparison is impossible in any other way. However, authors who use such datasets should always explain the need to do so carefully and in some detail as such claims will be carefully scrutinized. Note that in many cases alternative datasets exist. The recommended course should be to not use the dataset, and (if necessary) explain that this may affect certain comparisons with prior art. It is a violation of policy for a referee or area chair to require comparison on a dataset that has been withdrawn.

Q. My research relies on broadly used public datasets of others, which have not been withdrawn, but for which it is unclear if they have been approved by an IRB. Is this allowed?

A. In the case of broadly used datasets that are still offered by their creators, for which IRB approval status is unclear, authors are encouraged to discuss the situation, e.g., why no better alternatives are available.

Q. I wish to claim a dataset contribution in my paper, but I either cannot release the data publicly, or am not sure I will be able to do so by the time of publication. Is this an issue?

A. YES. If you wish to claim a dataset as one of your contributions, it is expected that your dataset will be ready and available at the time you will be submitting the camera ready paper. If you cannot ensure that you can meet this deadline, then the release of the dataset should not be one of the major scientific contributions of your paper. Note that it is still acceptable to submit work relying on a non-public dataset – you just cannot claim that dataset as one of your contributions, and the paper will have to be evaluated based on its other merits.