ICCV 2025 Changes

 

To improve the review process and uphold the conference’s high standards, we are implementing several major changes compared to previous ICCV editions. Some of these changes were already introduced in CVPR 2025. Please review these changes carefully.

1. Unless serving in another capacity within the organization of ICCV 2025, all qualified authors are required to act as reviewers. 

Given the benefits authors gain from having a paper accepted at ICCV, it is unfair to the community when authors do not contribute to the reviewing process. Authors who serve in another capacity within the organization of ICCV 2025 are exempt from this requirement. It is recognized that not all authors may be qualified to serve as reviewers. Those authors who are new to or outside the computer vision community will be exempted.

2. If a reviewer is flagged as “highly irresponsible,” their paper submissions will be desk rejected per the discretion of the PCs

At ICCV 2025, reviewers are expected to provide fair and thoughtful reviews. Examples of highly irresponsible behavior include: one-sentence reviews, reviews generated by Large Language Models (LLMs), reviews that are irrelevant to the paper, or reviews that overlook substantial portions of the paper, but not cases where reviewers merely exhibit misunderstandings, miss small details of the paper, or hold differing opinions from other reviewers or the AC. If a review is flagged as highly irresponsible by an Area Chair (AC), it will undergo an oversight process managed by the Program Chairs (PCs). Any reviewer whose review is deemed to be “highly responsible” will face a desk rejection of all papers on which they are an author per the discretion of the PCs.

 

3. Any reviewer who fails to submit their assigned reviews by the deadline will face a desk rejection of all papers on which they are an author per the discretion of the PCs.

At ICCV 2025, reviewers are also expected to provide timely reviews. Historically, previous ICCV conferences (and CVPR, ECCV, and NeurIPS, amongst others) faced challenges with some reviewers failing to meet the review submission deadlines. It came to be accepted that there was an unofficial grace period after the reviewing deadline. In some cases, reviewers failed to respond to multiple reminders and did not submit their reviews at all. This necessitated Area Chairs (ACs) to follow up diligently with late reviewers, as well as assign emergency reviewers to ensure each paper received a minimum of three reviews. Over the years, this has added to the already large workload and stress of the conference organizers. To improve the review process and uphold the conference’s high standards, ICCV 2025 will strictly enforce the reviewing deadline. Any reviewer who fails to submit their assigned reviews by the deadline will face a desk rejection of all papers on which they are an author per the discretion of the PCs. This policy aims to ensure fairness and accountability across the reviewing process while reducing the burden on ACs and other conference organizers.

There will be multiple emails sent out to all reviewers as a reminder to submit reviews in a timely manner. Additionally, the co-authors of reviewers who have not submitted their reviews will also be notified that their submission may be desk rejected if all authors do not submit their reviews in time.

4. An author cannot submit more than 25 papers.

Each author is limited to a maximum of 25 paper submissions. If an author registers more than 25 papers, the Program Chairs (PCs) will desk-reject any submissions exceeding this limit.

5. Large Language Models (LLMs) are strictly prohibited from being used for writing reviews or meta-reviews at any stage.

You are not permitted to use a Large Language Model (LLM) to write your review, regardless of whether the LLM is accessed locally or via an API. This policy includes, but is not limited to, the following:

1. You may not ask an LLM to generate content for your review. The review must be entirely based on your own judgment.
2. You may not share substantial content from the paper or your review with an LLM. For instance, using an LLM to translate a review is prohibited.

However, you may use an LLM for tasks such as conducting background research or checking short phrases for clarity.

Enforcement: Area Chairs will monitor reviews and meta-reviews for potential violations of the LLM policy. If a review is flagged as a possible violation, it will undergo the same oversight process as described earlier. The process will not aim to definitively determine whether a review was written by an LLM (as this is currently infeasible), but rather to assess whether the review is highly irresponsible. If it is deemed highly irresponsible, the reviewer’s submitted papers may be desk-rejected at the discretion of the Program Chairs (PCs).

6. The names of the reviewers will be visible on OpenReview to the other reviewers of the paper after the final paper decisions have been made.

Waiting for the final decision helps avoid authority bias. Reviewer names will also be visible to Area Chairs and Program Chairs, as per the policy in previous years.

7. All authors must complete their OpenReview profiles.

Complete OpenReview profiles are required for better assignment and conflict detection. Papers with authors who have not completed their profiles will be desk-rejected.

8. The supplementary materials deadline is the same as the paper deadline.

Historically, ICCV conferences have had two submission deadlines - one for the main paper and another one for the supplementary deadline. The primary reason for this was to ensure website stability during the time of submission. Over the years, an unfortunate outcome was that some submissions squeezed in new critical experiments into the supplementary material. ICCV 2025 will have a single submission deadline with increased load capacity for the submission website. This simplifies the submission process, reduces the paper decision timeline by a week and ensures consistency in the submission process.

9. Data Sharing

To improve future review quality, the ICCV 2025 Program Chairs (PCs) plan to share the ICCV 2025 reviewing data privately with the PCs of other related future venues. This data will include personally identifiable information about each reviewer, including statistics on review assessments and timeliness.