The ECCV 2026 review form, explained

How ECCV reviewers read your paper

ECCV 2026 reviewers write a summary ("your abstract of the paper"), substantive strengths and weaknesses judged against the paper's declared contribution type (short bullet lists are not acceptable), a rating with a justification that weighs the key strengths and weaknesses, and minor additional comments; after the rebuttal they give a final recommendation and justification. Avoid the novelty fallacy, pure opinions, blank assertions, and demands to beat arXiv papers.

• Refer to "the paper" — never "you" or "the authors".
• No belittling or sarcastic remarks; professional, courteous tone with concrete suggestions.
• Back up any "done before" claim with specific references and explain how close the prior work is.
• Not beating state of the art, or not citing/beating an arXiv-only paper, is not on its own grounds for rejection.
• Do not request substantial new experiments for the rebuttal.
• Avoid the novelty fallacy, blank assertions and pure opinions; strengths and weaknesses must be argued, not listed.

Where the bar sits. ECCV 2026 accepted about 27.5% of ~10,500 submissions (secondary sources; ECCV 2024: 27.9%). No score statistics are public; on this modeled 1–5 scale a mean of ≥ 3.5 is a rough proxy for acceptance.

The reviewer form, field by field

In the order reviewers see it, with every score and its official wording.

1. 01

   Contribution Type

   Single choice

   The contribution type the authors most plausibly declared. Strengths and weaknesses are judged against it (e.g. a Datasets/Benchmarks paper is not expected to propose a novel method); any departure must be explained in the justification.

   • Algorithms/General
   • Theory/Foundational
   • Applied/Systems
   • Datasets/Benchmarks
   • Concept & Feasibility
2. 02

   Summary

   Free text

   The key ideas, contributions and their significance, in your own words.

3. 03

   Strengths

   List of points

   What gives the paper value, each point argued with specifics; short bullet fragments are not acceptable. Judge value against the declared contribution type.

4. 04

   Weaknesses

   List of points

   What detracts from the contributions, each argued with specifics. A novelty concern must cite the specific prior work. Judge against the declared contribution type.

5. 05

   Rating

   Score · 1–5

   Preliminary rating before the rebuttal.

   1. 5Strong Accept
   2. 4Weak Accept
   3. 3Borderline
   4. 2Weak Reject
   5. 1Reject
6. 06

   Justification Of Rating

   Free text

   Why the paper should or should not be accepted: which strengths and weaknesses matter most and how they weigh against each other given the contribution type, and what the rebuttal should address.

7. 07

   Additional Comments

   List of points

   Minor suggestions, questions and corrections that are not crucial to the recommendation.

8. 08

   Confidence

   Score · 1–5

   How certain you are about your assessment.

   Score	Meaning
   5	You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.
   4	You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.
   3	You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.
   2	You are willing to defend your assessment, but it is quite likely that you did not understand the central parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.
   1	Your assessment is an educated guess. The submission is not in your area or the submission was difficult to understand. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Area chair meta-review

ECCV ACs decide accept/reject and nominate orals and award candidates; accepting against unanimous reviewers needs exceptional justification. Do not lean on reviewer confidence scores.

• Award candidate
• Oral
• Poster
• Reject

ECCV author requirements

Reviewers check these. Gaps are easy points to lose.

1. Main paper at most 14 pages excluding references
2. Contribution type declared (Algorithms/General, Theory/Foundational, Applied/Systems, Datasets/Benchmarks, Concept & Feasibility)
3. Anonymized; no external links that expand content, and no prompt injection
4. Datasets/Benchmarks papers: data public by camera-ready
5. No citations to non-existent material

Policy on LLMs in reviewing