CCF A类会议 —— CVPR 2022 论文审稿模板

=============================================

Edit Review
Thank you for accepting to serve as a reviewer for CVPR 2022!
Reviews are due by January 14, 2022. Important reviewer information:
Reviewer guidelines Reviewer tutorial slides Reviewer tutorial video

Notes:
(1) Reviewer questions marked with * are mandatory.
(2) Reviewer questions 14 and 15 are currently disabled and do not need to be completed for now. They will only be enabled after the author rebuttal.
(3) The authors' responses to the submission form are accessible by clicking on the paper ID in the reviewer console.

Paper ID
xxxxxxxxx
Paper Title
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1. By taking this review assignment and checking on "I agree" below, I acknowledge that I have read and understood the reviewer guidelines. * (visible to meta-reviewers)

I agree

2. Summary. In 5-7 sentences, describe the key ideas, experimental or theoretical results, and their significance. *
(visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

3. Strengths. Consider the significance of key ideas, experimental or theoretical validation, writing quality, data contribution. Explain clearly why these aspects of the paper are valuable. Short bullet lists do NOT suffice. * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

4. Weaknesses. Consider the significance of key ideas, experimental or theoretical validation, writing quality, data contribution. Clearly explain why these are weak aspects of the paper, e.g. why a specific prior work has already demonstrated the key contributions, or why the experiments are insufficient to validate the claims, etc. Short bullet lists do NOT suffice. * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

5. Paper rating (pre-rebuttal). * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)
Strong Accept
Weak Accept
Borderline
Weak Reject
Strong Reject

6. Recommendation confidence. * (visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

Very Confident
Somewhat Confident
Not Confident

7. Justification of rating. What are the most important factors in your rating? * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

8. Are there any serious ethical/privacy/transparency/fairness concerns? If yes, please also discuss below in Question 9. * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

Yes
No

9. Limitations and Societal Impact. Have the authors adequately addressed the limitations and potential negative societal impact of their work? Discuss any serious ethical/privacy/transparency/fairness concerns here. Also discuss if there are important limitations that are not apparent from the paper. * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

10. Is the contribution of a new dataset a main claim for this paper? Have the authors indicated so in the submission form? * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

Dataset contribution claim in the paper. Indicated in the submission form
Dataset contribution claim in the paper. Not indicated in the submission form
No dataset contribution claim

11. Additional comments to author(s). Include any comments that may be useful for revision but should not be considered in the paper decision. (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

12. Confidential comments to AC, such as concerns about plagiarism, other ethical violations, or your ability to evaluate the paper (only visible to area chairs). (visible to meta-reviewers)

13. If another person wrote or helped you with the review, please identify that person here (only visible to area chairs). (visible to meta-reviewers)

500 characters left

14. Final recommendation based on ALL the reviews, rebuttal, and discussion (post-rebuttal). (visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)
Strong Accept
Weak Accept
Borderline Accept
Borderline Reject
Reject

15. Final justification (post-rebuttal). (visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta- reviewers)

=========================================

Edit Review
Thank you for accepting to serve as a reviewer for CVPR 2022!
Reviews are due by January 14, 2022. Important reviewer information:
Reviewer guidelines Reviewer tutorial slides Reviewer tutorial video

Notes:
(1) Reviewer questions marked with * are mandatory.
(2) Reviewer questions 14 and 15 are currently disabled and do not need to be completed for now. They will only be enabled after the author rebuttal.
(3) The authors' responses to the submission form are accessible by clicking on the paper ID in the reviewer console.

Paper ID
xxxxxxxxx
Paper Title
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1.  By taking this review assignment and checking on "I agree" below, I acknowledge that I have read and understood the reviewer guidelines. * (visible to meta-reviewers)

         I agree

2.  Summary. In 5-7 sentences, describe the key ideas, experimental or theoretical results, and their significance. *
(visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

3.  Strengths. Consider the significance of key ideas, experimental or theoretical validation, writing quality, data contribution. Explain clearly why these aspects of the paper are valuable. Short bullet lists do NOT suffice. * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

4.  Weaknesses. Consider the significance of key ideas, experimental or theoretical validation, writing quality, data contribution. Clearly explain why these are weak aspects of the paper, e.g. why a specific prior work has already demonstrated the key contributions, or why the experiments are insufficient to validate the claims, etc. Short bullet lists do NOT suffice. * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

5.  Paper rating (pre-rebuttal). * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)
         Strong Accept
         Weak Accept
         Borderline
         Weak Reject
         Strong Reject

6.  Recommendation confidence. * (visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

         Very Confident
         Somewhat Confident
         Not Confident

7.  Justification of rating. What are the most important factors in your rating? * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

8.  Are there any serious ethical/privacy/transparency/fairness concerns? If yes, please also discuss below in Question 9. * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

         Yes
         No

9.  Limitations and Societal Impact. Have the authors adequately addressed the limitations and potential negative societal impact of their work? Discuss any serious ethical/privacy/transparency/fairness concerns here. Also discuss if there are important limitations that are not apparent from the paper. * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

10.   Is the contribution of a new dataset a main claim for this paper? Have the authors indicated so in the submission form? * (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

         Dataset contribution claim in the paper. Indicated in the submission form
         Dataset contribution claim in the paper. Not indicated in the submission form
         No dataset contribution claim

11.  Additional comments to author(s). Include any comments that may be useful for revision but should not be considered in the paper decision. (visible to authors during feedback, visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)

12.  Confidential comments to AC, such as concerns about plagiarism, other ethical violations, or your ability to evaluate the paper (only visible to area chairs). (visible to meta-reviewers)

13.  If another person wrote or helped you with the review, please identify that person here (only visible to area chairs). (visible to meta-reviewers)

         500 characters left

14.  Final recommendation based on ALL the reviews, rebuttal, and discussion (post-rebuttal). (visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta-reviewers)
         Strong Accept
         Weak Accept
         Borderline Accept
         Borderline Reject
         Reject

15.  Final justification (post-rebuttal). (visible to authors after notification, visible to other reviewers, visible to meta- reviewers)

=========================================