http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~gjb47/tmp/ICCVreviewing/ReviewForm/ICCV_review_Paper%23%23%23%23.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ICCV2007 Review Report Title: *####* - *PAPER TITLE GOES HERE* *Key Contribution:* (cannot be left blank) *The rank of this paper:* (cannot be left blank) number out of 10 (the best paper has rank 1) __ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Overall Rating:* (pick one) Definitely accept Probably accept Borderline paper Probably reject Definitely reject Description For the sake of the authors and the quality of the reviewing process, please explain your ratings in the space provided. Stress both the positive and negative aspects of the paper to help the Area Chair to make the final recommendation. *Explanation (cannot be left blank):* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Confidence: *Rating* (pick one) Very confident Confident Not confident Description By accepting a paper for review, the reviewer confirms his competence in the required areas. He is thus expected to be quite confident in his/her conclusions. "Confident" is therefore the default option. Use the other options to stress that you are absolutely sure about your conclusions (you are an expert in the respective area) or that you feel some doubt (you are not an expert in the respective area, but you are able to distinguish good work form a bad work in the respective area). If you have serious doubts about your ability to assess the paper, please inform the PC chairs. *Explanation:* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Novelty: *Rating* (pick one) Very original Moderately original Minor originality Has been done before (implies reject, justify thoroughly) Description This is the standard notion of novelty. "Very original" papers open new directions and often become seminal papers. The "Has been done before" must be accompanied by relevant references. *Explanation:* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Importance / Relevance: *Rating* (pick one) Of broad interest Of sufficient interest Of limited interest Irrelevant or out of scope for ICCV (implies reject, justify thoroughly) Description Every researcher in CV should find interest in works "Of broad interest" for, e.g., a contribution in his field of interest, the technical quality of the work, or a surprising result. Such papers are clearly suitable for oral presentation. Works "Of sufficient interest" do not have to address everyone in the audience, but should have an impact in a certain area. Works "Of limited interest" should be considered for ECCV only if their novelty, clarity, and correctness is excellent. *Explanation:* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reference to Prior Work: *Rating* (pick one) Excellent reference to prior work References adequate References missing Does not cite relevant work (implies reject, justify thoroughly) *Description* A "Does not cite relevant" work strongly suggests reject. This option should be selected if the missing work is well known in the community and commonly cited, else we suggest giving the authors the benefit of the doubt by selecting "References missing". *Explanation:* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Clarity of Presentation: *Rating* (pick one) Reads very well Is clear enough Difficult to read Unreadable (implies reject, justify thoroughly) *Explanation:* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Technical Correctness: *Rating* (pick one) Definitely correct Probably correct, did not check completely Contains minor errors Has major problems (implies reject, justify thoroughly) Description The statement that a paper is "Technically correct" means that its conclusions are supported by flawless arguments. Proofs are correct, formulas are correct, there are no hidden assumptions, experiments are well designed and properly evaluated. *Explanation:* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Experimental Validation: *Rating* (pick one) Sufficient experimental validation or a theoretical paper Limited but convincing Lacking in some respect Insufficient validation (implies reject, justify thoroughly) Description Different papers need different levels of experimental validation. A theoretical paper may need no experiments. A paper presenting a new idea might just need an experiment illustrating that there exists a situation where the idea applies. A paper presenting a new phenomenon or a performance evaluation paper may need a thorough experiments and their evaluation. Selecting "Insufficient validation" implies rejection and therefore it is the right choice for papers that present claims that require a good experimental evidence but do not provide it. *Explanation:* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Additional comments to author(s):* *Comments to committee:* (to be withheld from authors) *Reviewed by:* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In case of problems, send an e-mail to iccv@cs.rutgers.edu