|Will the paper submission deadline or other main conference deadlines be extended?|
|We have no plan to extend the deadline.|
|Will all authors on a paper need to make themselves available as reviewers?|
|Our expectation is that the majority of authors should make themselves available as reviewers. At the time of abstract submission on CMT (a week before the paper deadline) the author list should be entered on CMT and an option will be available for authors to indicate which authors will be able to review - requests for certain authors to not be considered as reviewers can also be entered with a suitable justification. For example, junior researchers (e.g. early PhD and below) or authors who are not computer vision researchers (e.g. providing domain expertise for experiments) would be considered reasonable justification.|
|Domain Conflicts: What should I register and how should I edit them?|
Note: It is very important that you declare your conflict domains, both your current institution and those you have collaborated with, by the Paper Submission Deadline.
Conflict domains are crucial in ensuring review integrity, and therefore should be treated with the same rigour you would otherwise apply to your paper.
BMVC operates a conflict checking policy, and any paper found to have an undeclared or incorrect institutional conflict will be summarily rejected.
Please read the following instructions very carefully to complete your conflict domain information.
When you log in to CMT for the first time, you will be asked to enter your conflict domain information. You will not be able to submit any paper without entering this information. We need to ensure conflict-free reviewing of all papers. At any time, you can update this information by clicking on your name in the upper-right and entering “Domain Conflicts” under BMVC 2023.
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 their current institution domain and the domains of all institutions they have worked for, or have had very close collaboration with, within the last 3 years as a semi-colon separated list (example: mit.edu; ox.ac.uk; microsoft.com). DO NOT enter the domain of email providers such as gmail.com. ALSO NOTE: all authors should be using their institutional domain email addresses and should not register on CMT using a generic email address such as a gmail address. 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 will be summarily rejected.
|Can I promote my paper in the press or on social media?|
In keeping with the PAMI guidelines, adopted by CVPR, to maintain double blind review, authors are not allowed to go to the press with their submission prior to the end of the review process, or to advertise their work on social media while explicitly identifying it as a BMVC 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, since the message may go out to many potential reviewers.
Authors must not:
|Can I submit an existing workshop/arXiv/.... paper?|
The dual submission policy of BMVC follows that of CVPR. Authors should guarantee that a submission 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 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”.
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 BMVC should not have substantial overlap with prior publications or other concurrent submissions.