Thank you for volunteering to review for ECCV 2010. The conference needs experts like you. Based on the preferred reviewing areas, the suggestions of the area chairs and the individual constraints on the reviewing load we have invested a lot of effort so that all of you will have to review less than 10 papers. We would like to apologize to the reviewers who didn't receive papers to review despite their willingness to help.
We tried to avoid all conflicts of interest but if you recognize one please report it to the program chairs immediately. Though both PCs as well ACs checked the papers, if you discover a violation of anonymity, double submission, or plagiarism, in particular in the supplemental material, report it to us immediately.
Prior of accessing the ECCV submission server and seeing your assignments, we assume that by accepting this invitation, you also adhere the reviewing instruction and the non-disclosure-agreement appended at the end of this page.
In order to access your papers, please log in to:
Your login user account is the e-mail address to which this invitation is sent. If this is the first time you go to the server, or if you don't remember your password, please use the reset password option. If you are unable to access the papers and the reviews forms, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you in advance for your hard work,
Kostas, Nikos, and Petros
Non-Disclosure Agreement and Reviewing Instructions
The papers you review and the information therein is confidential. Though laws are not explicit about whether submission to a doubly anonymous review process constitutes public release or not, we expect from you to you do NOT regard it as a public release and that you follow the standard confidentiality reviewer ethics.
Please take the time to read carefully through the papers as well as the supplemental material.
Never forget that you are yourself an author, too, and you deserve a fair evaluation.
Please provide substantiated comments and show to the author that you have devoted the right amount of time and thought.
Be fair in your evaluation: If a paper is incremental with respect to cited references, be concrete and judge the paper's relevance, too. Sometimes a research increment can have unprecedented practical impact. If a paper is incremental with respect to missed references, be strict but fair and polite.
If a paper has a novel technical approach but missed important references it might still deserve publication, in particular do not become emotional if they missed your own citation.
When judging novelty, provide the references for work done before or to which paper the submission is a just incremental improvement.
When judging relevance try to be objective and not express a bias towards a school of thought or be dismissive of particular areas of computer vision.
When judging technical correctness and strength provide details and justify why a result might be weak or have a flaw.
When judging experiments reward scrutiny, use of benchmarks, and comparison to other approaches.
We summarized into one box of comments clarity of presentation including comments on writing and missing references.
We added a box about oral presentation/award recommendation, to avoid having it decided solely by the Area Chairs/Award Committee.