The WACV 2027 review form, explained

How WACV reviewers read your paper

WACV runs two rounds. Round-1 papers get Accept, Revise and Resubmit (a revised paper plus one-page rebuttal returns to the same reviewers about two weeks later) or Reject; round-2 papers are accepted or rejected with no rebuttal. Reviewers argue strengths and weaknesses in detail and judge Applications papers on systems-level innovation, domain novelty and comparative assessment rather than algorithmic novelty alone.

• 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.
• Use neutral references ("the paper", "R1"); do not ask the paper to cite your own work.

Where the bar sits. WACV 2026 accepted 832 of 2,550 submissions (33%): round 1 38% (84 direct accepts, 439 of 736 revisions accepted), round 2 26%. No score statistics are public; on this modeled 1–5 scale a mean of ≥ 3.5 is a rough proxy for acceptance or a revise-and-resubmit invitation.

The reviewer form, field by field

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

1. 01

   Track

   Single choice

   The track the paper was most plausibly submitted to. Applications papers are judged on systems-level innovation, novelty of the application domain and comparative assessment, not solely on algorithmic novelty; Evaluations & Datasets papers are judged like the NeurIPS E&D track.

   • Algorithms
   • Applications
   • Evaluations & Datasets
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. A single short sentence or a few words do not suffice.

4. 04

   Weaknesses

   List of points

   What detracts from the contributions, each argued with specifics. A novelty concern must cite the specific prior work. A single short sentence or a few words do not suffice.

5. 05

   Rating

   Score · 1–5

   Overall rating for the track's criteria.

   1. 5Strong Accept
   2. 4Accept
   3. 3Neutral
   4. 2Reject
   5. 1Strong Reject
6. 06

   Justification And Requested Revisions

   Free text

   Connect the rating to the assessment. For round-1 papers, list precisely the revisions that a two-week Revise-and-Resubmit could address, and which issues (if any) could not be fixed in that window.

7. 07

   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

WACV AC pairs decide; overruling all three reviewers is not acceptable, and departing from the reviewer majority must be raised with the PCs.

• Accept
• Revise and Resubmit
• Reject

WACV author requirements

Reviewers check these. Gaps are easy points to lose.

1. Main text within 8 pages plus references; abstract at most 5,000 characters
2. Track chosen: Algorithms, Applications, or Evaluations & Datasets
3. Anonymized submission; supplementary material adds no results on new datasets or from an improved method
4. Reproducibility checklist (recommended)

Policy on LLMs in reviewing