# ICCV 2025 review form > Simulate ICCV-style reviews: Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, a six-level preliminary recommendation, a justification with points for the rebuttal, and confidence, in the CVF depersonalized voice. - Venue: IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision - Form status: modeled, not official. Modeled on ICCV 2025 (ICCV 2027 guidelines are not out yet). The form is not public: field order follows the CVF/CVPR 2025 form, and the six-level recommendation scale is reconstructed from a community post, not official wording. - Official source: https://iccv.thecvf.com/Conferences/2025/ReviewerGuidelines - Overall score: Preliminary Recommendation, 1–6 - Rough acceptance bar (our simulation): mean ≥ 4 - Web page: https://reviewpaper.ai/venues/iccv ## How reviewers read the 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. ## Reviewer form, field by field ### 1. Summary Type: free text. The key ideas, contributions and their significance, in your own words. ### 2. Strengths Type: list of points. What gives the paper value, each point argued with specifics; short bullet fragments are not acceptable. ### 3. Weaknesses Type: 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. Preliminary Recommendation Type: score, 1–6. Rating before the rebuttal; reviewers update it with a final justification afterwards. - **6**: Accept - **5**: Weak Accept - **4**: Borderline Accept - **3**: Borderline Reject - **2**: Weak Reject - **1**: Reject ### 5. Justification For Recommendation And Suggestions For Rebuttal Type: free text. Connect the rating to the assessment above and state precisely what the one-page rebuttal should address. ### 6. Confidence Type: score, 1–5. How certain you are about your assessment. - **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. Additional Comments (optional) Type: list of points. 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. Recommendation options: Award candidate · Oral · Highlight · Poster · Reject ## ICCV author requirements 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 ## LLM policy ICCV 2025 does not allow LLMs or online chatbots in any part of the reviewing process; LLM-generated reviews are "highly irresponsible" and can lead to desk rejection of all the reviewer's papers. Official policy: https://iccv.thecvf.com/Conferences/2025/ReviewerGuidelines --- Simulate reviews of your own draft in this venue's form: https://reviewpaper.ai/new?venue=iccv (3 free reviews). Sample report: https://reviewpaper.ai/sample. reviewpaper.ai is for authors checking their own unpublished drafts. If you are an assigned reviewer, follow your venue's LLM policy: most venues forbid putting a submission you are reviewing into any external AI tool. Not affiliated with any conference.