Reviewing the Review Process

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F68407700%3A21730%2F21%3A00365122" target="_blank" >RIV/68407700:21730/21:00365122 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

<a href="https://sites.google.com/view/reviewing-the-review-process/home?authuser=0" target="_blank" >https://sites.google.com/view/reviewing-the-review-process/home?authuser=0</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Reviewing the Review Process

Original language description

Over the last years, the field of Computer Vision has experienced a tremendous growth. This is evident in the ever-growing number of participants of the main Computer Vision conferences, as well as industrial and public interest in this area of research. As part of this growth, the number of paper submissions is increasing at a rapid pace. Unfortunately, the number of experienced reviewers and area chairs is not increasing at the same rate. This could be linked to the fact that many senior researchers are nowadays (partially) affiliated with industry, and thus do not have the time to be part of the reviewing process in senior roles and to educate their PhD students about writing reviews. Another reason is the ever-increasing range of topics presented at CVPR/ECCV/ICCV, which makes it harder and harder to find experts for each submission. As a result, the quality of the reviews seems to be decreasing, leading to more random decisions and thus frustration in the community. It is left to us as a research community to make an effort to actively work on increasing the quality of the review process. This tutorial is a follow-up to a successful CVPR 2020 tutorial (the video recording of the tutorial has been watched more than 15k times on YouTube). Last year’s tutorial had a broad focus, covering the process from writing a paper, going over writing reviews and rebuttals, and finally, to how reviews are used by Area Chairs (AC). Based on questions from the audience, this year’s edition focuses on the latter parts of the process: from an AC’s perspective: what is useful in a review and in a rebuttal? What are the types of reviews and discussions that are helpful in the decision process? from a program chair’s (PC) perspective: how can we improve the review and the decision process? How can we educate our authors, reviewers, and area chairs? How is the process currently structured and where are the current bottlenecks? In order to achieve these goals, we plan to provide diverse perspectives from both relatively young and well-established researchers, area chairs and program chairs from recent conferences. We believe that by providing multiple perspectives on the topic, attendees will be able to better understand the review process and, as a consequence, help us as a community to improve its quality. We hope that by educating the community, we will make the process more transparent, thus increasing the trust in the system.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

W - Workshop organization

CEP classification

—

OECD FORD branch

10201 - Computer sciences, information science, bioinformathics (hardware development to be 2.2, social aspect to be 5.8)

Project

—

Continuities

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Publication year

2021

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Event location

Virtual

Event country

CA - CANADA

Event starting date

—

Event ending date

—

Total number of attendees

100

Foreign attendee count

100

Type of event by attendee nationality

WRD - Celosvětová akce