These reviewing guidelines are inspired by the best practice from CVPR 2024 - for further details, please see the CVPR Reviewer Guidlines.

Thank you for volunteering your time to review for BMVC 2024! To maintain a high-quality technical program, we rely very much on the time and expertise of our reviewers. This document explains what is expected of all members of the Reviewing Committee for BMVC 2024.

BMVC will implement a scoring system this year, where Area Chairs will rate each review submitted. Reviewers that fall below a quality threshold will not be acknowledged as being part of the Reviewing Committee for BMVC 2024. It is, therefore, important to familiarise yourself with these guidelines to ensure that you are providing a quality review that the research community would benefit from.

To contact the Programme Chairs, please send emails to:

Reviewing Timeline

Reviewing In a Nutshell

Each paper that is accepted should be technically sound and make a contribution to the field. Look for what is good or stimulating in the paper and what knowledge advancement it has made. We recommend that you embrace novel, brave concepts, even if they have not been tested on many datasets. For example, the fact that a proposed method does not exceed the state-of-the-art accuracy on an existing benchmark dataset is not grounds for rejection by itself. Rather, it is important to weigh both the novelty and potential impact of the work alongside the reported performance. Minor flaws should not be a reason to reject a paper. Above all, you should be specific and detailed in your reviews. Your discussion, more than your score, will help the authors, fellow reviewers, and Area Chairs understand the basis for your recommendation. You should include specific feedback on ways the authors can improve their papers.

It is worth noting that there will be no rebuttal period for BMVC 2024. Therefore reviews should not ask for revisions and/or additional experiments but only evaluate the submitted paper as it stands.

Check your papers (13th-15th of May)

As soon as you get your reviewing assignment, please go through all the papers to make sure that (a) you have no obvious conflict of interest (see “Avoid Conflicts of Interest” below) and (b) you feel comfortable reviewing the paper assigned. If issues with either of these points arise, please get in touch with the Area Chair immediately as instructed in the detailed emails you will receive during the process.

Know the policies

Please read the Author Guidelines carefully to familiarise yourself with all official policies the authors are expected to follow. If you believe that a paper may violate any of these policies, please get in touch with the Area Chairs or Programme Chairs. In the meantime, proceed to review the paper, assuming no violation has taken place.

Ethics for Reviewing Papers

Respect anonymity in the review process

Our Author Guidelines have instructed authors to make reasonable efforts to hide their identities, including omitting their names, affiliations, and acknowledgements. This information will, of course, be included in the final published version of the manuscript. Reviewers should not actively discover the authors’ identity and make all efforts to keep their own identity invisible to the authors.

With the increase in popularity of arXiv preprints, sometimes the authors of a paper may already be known to the reviewer. Posting to arXiv is NOT considered a violation of anonymity on the part of the authors, and in most cases, reviewers who happen to know (or suspect) the authors’ identity can still review the paper as long as they feel that they can do an impartial job. An important general principle is to make every effort to treat papers fairly whether or not you know (or suspect) who wrote them. If you do not know the identity of the authors at the start of the process, DO NOT attempt to find it out by searching the Web for preprints.

Protect Ideas

As a reviewer for BMVC, you are responsible for protecting the confidentiality of the ideas presented in the papers you review. BMVC submissions are not published documents. The work is considered new or proprietary by the authors; otherwise, they would not have submitted it. Of course, their intent is to publish to the world ultimately, but most of the submitted papers will not appear in the BMVC proceedings. Thus, it is likely that the paper you have in your hands will be refined further and submitted to some other journal or conference. Sometimes the work is still considered confidential by the authors’ employers. These organisations do not consider sending a paper to BMVC for review to constitute a public disclosure. Protection of the ideas in the papers you receive means:

Avoid Conflicts of Interest

As a reviewer of a BMVC paper, it is important for you to avoid any conflict of interest. There should be no question about the impartiality of any review. Thus, if you are assigned a paper where your review would create a possible conflict of interest, you should return the paper and not submit a review. Conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) situations in which:

Be Professional

Belittling or sarcastic comments have no place in the reviewing process. The most valuable comments in a review help the authors understand their work’s shortcomings and how they might improve it. Write a courteous, informative, incisive, and helpful review that you would be proud to sign with your name (were it not anonymous).

How to Write Good Reviews

Finally, keep in mind that a thoughtful review benefits not only the authors but also yourself. Your reviews are read by other reviewers, especially the Area Chairs, in addition to the authors. Unlike the authors, the Area Chairs and Programme Committee know your identity. Being a helpful reviewer will generate goodwill towards you in the research community—and may even help you win an Outstanding Reviewer award.