The ICCV 2025 review form, explained

How ICCV reviewers read your paper

ICCV reviewers argue strengths and weaknesses rather than listing them, give a preliminary recommendation and a justification that tells the authors what the one-page rebuttal should address, then update their rating and justification after the rebuttal. Comparisons should only be requested to work public sufficiently ahead of the deadline; not beating SOTA is not on its own grounds for rejection; no substantial new experiments in the rebuttal.

• 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.

Where the bar sits. ICCV 2025 accepted 2,701 of 11,239 valid submissions (24%, "not pre-determined"). No score statistics are public; on this modeled 1–6 scale a mean of ≥ 4 (Borderline Accept) 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

   Summary

   Free text

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

2. 02

   Strengths

   List of points

   What gives the paper value, each point argued with specifics; short bullet fragments are not acceptable.

3. 03

   Weaknesses

   List of points

   What detracts from the contributions, each argued with specifics. A novelty concern must cite the specific prior work. Do not reject solely for missing SOTA or missing comparisons to work not public well before the deadline.

4. 04

   Preliminary Recommendation

   Score · 1–6

   Rating before the rebuttal; reviewers update it with a final justification afterwards.

   1. 6Accept
   2. 5Weak Accept
   3. 4Borderline Accept
   4. 3Borderline Reject
   5. 2Weak Reject
   6. 1Reject
5. 05

   Justification For Recommendation And Suggestions For Rebuttal

   Free text

   Connect the rating to the assessment above and state precisely what the one-page rebuttal should address.

6. 06

   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.

7. 07

   Additional Comments

   List of pointsoptional

   Minor issues, typos and suggestions that do not affect the recommendation.

Area chair meta-review

ICCV ACs work in triplets, decide accept/reject and nominate highlights, orals and awards.

• Award candidate
• Oral
• Highlight
• Poster
• Reject

ICCV author requirements

Reviewers check these. Gaps are easy points to lose.

1. Main text within 8 pages plus references
2. Anonymized submission; complete OpenReview profiles for all authors
3. At most 25 submissions per author
4. No citations to non-existent material

Policy on LLMs in reviewing