The first reviewing phase for the International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) ended this weekend. This first page was intended to cull those papers that clearly didn't fit the ICCV template without even providing them with a full normal review. ICCV should accept a couple of hundred papers, but there were about 1200 submission, so culling some papers quickly is attractive. The downside is that some of these culled authors probably worked hard on their papers, but I appears that they won't get back complete reviews.
You are encouraged to add a comment via the '
Leave a comment' link. No registration is needed, and it helps keep this author motivated.
whats the chances of getting paper accepted with
1 definite accept, 1 borderline and 1 weakly reject.
[ For ICCV, I think that's fairly bad news, but it depends also on the specifics of the review content. In general, the actual numerical scores are not completely reliable since the reviewers are not normalized with respect to one another. As a result, the area chairs have a lot of discretion. A paper with completely consistent and clear numerical scores has a well defined fate, but that is uncommon and otherwise it's a function of the specific text comments and the area chair's judgement. -gd ]
