Call for Papers

PLEASE CHECK HERE REGULARLY IN CASE OF CHANGES TO POLICIES AND NEW INFORMATION

Important: Please note that the policies have been extensively updated from previous years, including guidelines related to code submission, research areas, and code of conduct.

Papers in the main technical program must describe high-quality, original research. Topics of interest include the following aspects of computer vision and pattern recognition (in alphabetical order):

  • 3D from a single image and shape-from-x
  • 3D shape modeling and processing
  • Action and behavior recognition
  • Adversarial learning
  • Biometrics
  • Body gestures and pose
  • Computational photography
  • Datasets and evaluation
  • Detection and localization in 2D and/or 3D
  • Efficient training and inference methods
  • Explainable AI for CV
  • Faces
  • Fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in vision
  • First person (Egocentric) vision
  • Image and video manipulation detection
  • Image and video retrieval
  • Image and video synthesis
  • Low-level and physics-based vision
  • Low-shot learning
  • Machine learning architectures and formulations
  • Medical, biological, and cell microscopy
  • Motion and tracking
  • Neural generative models
  • Optimization and learning methods
  • Recognition and classification
  • Representation learning
  • Scene analysis and understanding
  • Scene text and document understanding
  • Segmentation, grouping, and shape
  • Semi / Weak / Self / Unsupervised Learning
  • Stereo, 3D from multiview and other sensors
  • Transfer learning
  • Video analysis and understanding
  • Vision + language
  • Vision + other modalities
  • Vision applications and systems
  • Vision for and autonomous vehicles
  • Vision for robotics and embodied vision
  • Visual reasoning and logical representation

All submissions will be handled electronically. In addition to the main technical program, the conference will include Tutorials, Workshops, Demonstrations, and Exhibits. Submit proposals to the appropriate chair.

Important dates:

Important: Note that important dates below are in the AM (midday) PST. The change to midday PST is meant to ensure faster CMT support. Shaded rows refer to workshop and tutorial proposals.

Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline February 4, 2022 11:59PM PT
Paper Submission Deadline* Mon. March 7, 2022 (8:59PM CET, 11:59AM PST)
Supplementary Materials Deadline** Mon. Mar. 14, 2022 (7:59PM CET, 11:59AM PDT)
Notification to Workshop Organizers March 25, 2022
Workshop web page on-line April 8, 2022
Tutorial Proposal Submission Deadline May 15, 2022
Reviews Released to Authors May 23, 2022
Rebuttals Due May 29, 2022 (8:59PM CEST, 11:59AM PST)
Notification to Tutorial Organizers Jul. 1, 2022
Final Decisions to Authors Jul.  3, 2022
Camera-Ready Deadline Jul. 17, 2022 (11:59AM Pacific Time)
Tutorial web page on-line Aug. 10, 2022
Main Conference Oct 25-27, 2022

* submission date is fixed, no extension will be given. There is no separate abstract submission deadline.
** Note that the clocks have changed in parts of N. America. So the unchanged CET deadline of 7:59PM corresponds to Seattle’s (where CMT lives) PDT, vs. last week when Seattle was in PST. Here’s one time-zone website that may help you figure out what the 7:59pm CET deadline means in your city.

Policies

General: ECCV’22 uses the Springer Nature Code of Conduct for Book Authors as the basis for many of the policies. We therefore urge you to please familiarise yourself with these guidelines before preparing and submitting your work to ECCV’22.

Review Process: By submitting a paper to ECCV, the authors agree to the review process and understand that papers are processed by the Toronto system to match each manuscript to the best possible area chairs and reviewers.

Confidentiality: The review process of ECCV is confidential. Reviewers are volunteers, not part of the ECCV organisation, and their efforts are greatly appreciated. The practice of keeping all information confidential during the review is part of the standard communication to all reviewers. Misuse of confidential information is a severe professional failure and appropriate measures will be taken when brought to the attention of ECCV organizers. It should be noted, however, that the organization of ECCV is not and cannot be held responsible for the consequences when reviewers break confidentiality.

Conflict Responsibilities: It is the primary author’s responsibility to ensure that all authors on their paper have registered their institutional conflicts into CMT (see details under Domain Conflicts below). If a paper is found to have an undeclared or incorrect institutional conflict, the paper may be summarily rejected. To avoid undeclared conflicts, the author list is considered to be final after the submission deadline and no changes are allowed for accepted papers. 

Double blind review: ECCV reviewing is double blind, in that authors do not know the names of the area chairs/reviewers of 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. Avoid providing information that may identify the authors in the acknowledgments (e.g., co-workers and grant IDs) and in the supplemental material (e.g., titles in the movies, or attached papers). Avoid providing links to websites that identify the authors. Links to public websites with resources relevant to the paper is generally fine. To avoid unnecessary complications during the review process, however, authors are strongly discouraged from including links to websites created for the purpose of their submission to ECCV’22 (e.g., to offer code or data, share demos or videos), even if steps were taken to anonymize them. Violation of any of these guidelines may lead to rejection without review. Generally speaking, material created as part of a submission should be included in the paper or the supplemental material. If you need to cite a different paper of yours that is being submitted concurrently to ECCV, the authors should (1) cite these papers; (2) argue in the body of your paper why your ECCV paper is non trivially different from these concurrent submissions; and (3) include anonymized versions of those papers in the supplemental material.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism consists of appropriating the words or results of another work, without credit, both verbatim or otherwise. To clarify, this includes self-plagiarism, including double submission discussed below. ECCV 2022’s policy on plagiarism follows the one available in Springer Nature Code of Conduct for Book Authors. Please see, in particular, the information included under the section “Originality” and the details on handling reports of plagiarism, included in the section “Suspected transgression of ethical standards”.

We will be actively checking for plagiarism and may employ software to automatically screen for suspected cases of plagiarism. Furthermore, the paper matching system we use to assign papers to reviewers and area chairs 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 approach plagiarism cases enthusiastically. Plagiarism can mean the end of your professional career.

Dual/Double Submissions: The goals of ECCV are to publish exciting new work for the first time and to avoid duplicating the effort of reviewers.

By submitting a manuscript to ECCV, authors acknowledge that it has not been previously published or accepted for publication in a substantially similar form in any peer-reviewed venue including journal, conference, workshop, or archival forum. Furthermore, no publication substantially similar in content has been or will be submitted to this or another conference, workshop, or journal during the review period, which starts on the submission deadline and ends when initial reviews are released to authors. Violation of any of these conditions will lead to rejection without review, 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”.

The above definition does not consider an arXiv.org paper as a publication because it cannot be rejected. It also excludes university technical reports which are typically not peer reviewed. However, this definition of publication does include peer-reviewed workshop papers, even if they do not appear in a proceedings, if their length is more than four pages (excluding citations). Given this definition, any submission to ECCV should not have substantial overlap with prior publications or other concurrent submissions.

Note that a technical report (departmental, arXiv.org, etc.) version of the submission that is publicly released without any form of direct peer-review is not considered prior art and is therefore not required to be cited in the submission.

A submission with substantial overlap is one that shares 20 percent or more material with previous or concurrently submitted publications. Such submissions will be considered plagiarism (self or otherwise). Please refer to our Plagiarism policies, above, for more information.

Attendance responsibilities: Publication of the paper in the ECCV 2022 proceedings of Springer requires that at least one of the authors registers for the conference and present the paper there. It also requires that a camera-ready version that satisfies all formatting requirements is submitted before the camera-ready deadline.

Publication: All accepted papers will be made publicly available by the European Computer Vision Association (ECVA) before the conference. Authors wishing to submit a patent understand that the paper’s official public disclosure is before the conference or whenever the authors make it publicly available, whichever is first. The conference considers papers confidential until published on ECVA 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.

Publicity, social media, embargo policy: ECCV 2022 has a double blind reviewing policy. Therefore, to preserve anonymity: (1) Papers submitted to ECCV must not be discussed with the press until they have been officially accepted for publication. (2) Any work explicitly identified as an ECCV submission should not be advertised on social media until the final decision is released to authors. To clarify, the embargo period begins from the release of these guidelines on the ECCV’22 webpage (Jan 29th, 2022); that is, the embargo is effective even before the submission to ECCV’22. Please see the FAQ below for more details.

 

Submission Guidelines

All submissions will be handled electronically via the conference’s CMT Website. By submitting a paper, the authors agree to the policies stipulated in this website. The submission deadline is March 7, 2021. Supplementary material can be submitted until March 14, 2021.

Papers are limited to 14 pages, including figures and tables, in the ECCV style. Additional pages containing only cited references are allowed. Please refer to the following files for detailed formatting instructions:

Papers that are not properly anonymized, or do not use the template, or have more than 14 pages (excluding references) will be rejected without review.

Note also that the template has changed since ECCV’2020. We therefore strongly urge authors to use this new template instead of templates from older conferences

1) Paper submission and review site:

Submission Site: https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/ECCV2022

Please make sure that your browser has cookies and Javascript enabled.

Please add “email@msr-cmt.org” to your list of safe senders (whitelist) to prevent important email announcements from being blocked by spam filters.

It is the primary author’s responsibility to ensure that all authors on their paper have registered their institutional conflicts into CMT. Each author should list domains of all institutions they have worked for, or have had very close collaboration with, within the last 3 years (example: mit.edu; ox.ac.uk; microsoft.com). Do not enter the domain of email providers such as gmail.com. This institutional conflict information will be used in conjunction with prior authorship conflict information to resolve assignments to both reviewers and area chairs. If a paper is found to have an undeclared or incorrect institutional conflict, the paper may be summarily rejected.

2) Creating a paper submission:

(a) Click the “+ Create new submission” button in the upper-left to create a new submission. There, you will be prompted to enter the title, abstract, authors, and subject areas. You are strongly encouraged to finalize the author list by the registration deadline.

(b) Check with your co-authors to make sure that: (1) you add them with their correct CMT email; and (2) they have entered their domain conflicts into CMT for ECCV 2022. If you add an author with an email that is not in CMT and the name and organization is not automatically filled, that means they are not yet in the system, and you should make sure to check that they do not already have an account under a different email before completing the requested information to add them.

(c) Enter subject (topic) areas for your paper. You must include at least one primary area. This information is used to help assign ACs and reviewers.

3) Paper Number:

Once you have registered your paper (i.e. title/authors), you will be assigned a paper number. Insert this into the latex or word template before generating the pdf of your paper for submission. Papers submitted without a number may not be reviewed.

4) Submission Requirements:

The maximum size of the abstract that CMT will accept is 4000 characters. The LNCS limits on word-count are not critical at submission-time.

The paper must be PDF only (maximum 50MB). Make sure your paper meets the formatting and anonymity requirements described above.

The supplementary material can be either PDF or ZIP only (maximum 100MB). The paper for review (PDF only) must be uploaded first before CMT will accept uploads of the supplementary material.

5) 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. If not submitting a single PDF, all supplementary material must be self-contained and zipped into a single file. The maximum file size is 100MB either way. Note that you can update the file by uploading a new one (the old one will be deleted and replaced).

Supplementary material may include videos, code, proofs, additional figures or tables, more detailed analysis of experiments presented in the paper, or a concurrent submission to ECCV or another conference. It may not include 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.

6) Code Submission and Reproducibility:

To improve reproducibility in AI research, we highly encourage authors to voluntarily submit their code as part of supplementary material. Authors should also use the Reproducibility Checklist as a guide for writing reproducible papers. Reviewers will be asked to check the submitted code to ensure that the paper’s results are trustworthy and reproducible. The code should be anonymized, e.g., author names, institutions and licenses should be removed. We do not expect authors to submit private/sensitive data, only sufficient data to demonstrate the method. All code/data will be reviewed confidentially and kept private. Code, HTML, and Readme files about this submission are fine if they are wholly contained within the .zip package. Anything that connects outward or reveals specific tracking info about a reviewer’s computer is strictly prohibited. Providing links to github repositories with sample code, even if anonymized, is strongly discouraged as it could lead to a compromise in anonymity and consequent desk rejection.

 

Author FAQs

About Submitting Papers

    1. Can we please have an extension on the deadline?
      NO. And any incomplete submission or a submission not meeting the required criteria will be deleted. Important: We recommend submitting your papers well in advance and not waiting for the last minute, following past experience where CMT servers were unable to handle the rush of last minute submissions. We warn that there will be no extensions given after the deadline regardless of any last minute technical challenges or blockers.
    2. Can we get my quota increased for the size of paper submission from 30 MB to something higher?
      NO. We have set hard limits of 50MB (PDF Only) for paper submission and 100MB (PDF or ZIP only) for supplementary materials for submissions for review. As we are expecting many submissions, and as each reviewer is expected to review multiple papers, larger file downloads (and uploads) will tax the system and abilities of reviewers to get to the papers fast enough. Authors should consider adding hi-res images as supplementary material (see supplementary material guidelines).
    3. Can I delete my submission from the CMT site during the review period?
      NO. While papers are being processed by the area chairs and reviewers, they may not be removed from CMT. Papers can only be deleted / retracted during the rebuttal period, after the initial reviews are released to authors.
    4. How do I delete Supplementary Material from the CMT site?
      After you log in, in the “Author” console, you’ll notice “Upload/Delete File” at the end of the supplementary file name. Click on that, and in the page that appears, you can click on the “Delete” button to remove the supplementary file. (Please note that you will not be able to delete the supplementary file after the supplementary material deadline.)
    5. Can we submit color images with our papers for review?
      YES. Reviewers will get the exact pdf file of the paper you submitted, so they can see the color images on the screen. Do be warned though that many reviews still like to read printed papers and not all have access to high-end color printers. Please make sure to comment in the paper to request the reviewers to see the color online copy.
    6. What is the ECCV 2022 policy on DUAL SUBMISSIONS?
      Please read the dual/double submission section above.
    7. 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 ECCV 2022?
      Please read the dual/double submission section above.
    8. Does a document on GitHub or other open repositories count as a publication, and therefore is ineligible for review and publication at ECCV 2022?
      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/double submission paragraph above, GitHub documents are not publications and won’t be treated as such. To preserve anonymity, you should not cite your public codebases. You can say that the code will be made publicly available or include it in the supplemental.
    9. Does a presentation at a departmental seminar during the review period violate the anonymity standard or other ECCV 2022 policy?
      NO. Authors must properly anonymize the written submission as per the guidelines. There is no requirement that the material otherwise be kept confidential during the review process.
    10. Can I promote my paper in the press or on social media?
      NO. To maintain a fair reviewing process, authors should not advertise their submission before the end of the review process. Also, they should not promote their work on social media while explicitly identifying it as an ECCV submission. In recent conference cycles, some authors were found posting about their submissions on Twitter or other social media, and even including the title or a snapshot of the paper. This is a violation of anonymity.
      Authors must not:
      – Talk to the media about their work as “in submission to ECCV”
      – Make any posts to social media or elsewhere that can be linked to a specific ECCV submission (e.g., mentioning the title of the submission or details and content and saying that it’s an ECCV submission)
      Authors may:
      – Talk about their work in a presentation without saying it’s submitted to ECCV
      – Submit to arXiv without mentioning ECCV. In particular, we suggest using a different latex template when submitting the work to arxiv.A paper may be rejected if the program chairs feel that the authors have attempted to let potential reviewers know who wrote the paper.
    11. How do I cite my results reported in open challenges?
      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.
    12. Does my submission need to cite arXiv papers that are related to my work?
      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 the Review Process

  1. Is the ECCV 2022 Review Process CONFIDENTIAL?
    YES, ECCV 2022 Reviewing is considered confidential. All reviewers are required to keep every manuscript they review as confidential documents and not to share or distribute materials for any reason except to facilitate the reviewing of the submitted work.
  2. Are ECCV 2022 Reviews Double BLIND or Single BLIND?
    ECCV reviewing is Double BLIND, in that authors do not know the names of the area chairs/reviewers of their papers, and area chairs/reviewers do not know the names of the authors. Please read Section 1.6 of the example paper egpaper_for_review.pdf for detailed instructions on how to preserve anonymity. Avoid providing information that may identify the authors in the acknowledgments (e.g., co-workers and grant IDs) and in the supplemental material (e.g., titles in the movies, or attached papers). Avoid providing links to websites that identify the authors. Violation of any of these guidelines will lead to rejection without review.