峰網誌

一些關於Journal有用的資訊...

Journal

PAMI – IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, since 1979 (impact factor: 5.96, #1 in all engineering and AI, top-ranked IEEE and CS journal)

IJCV – International Journal on Computer Vision, since 1988 (impact factor: 5.36, #2 in all engineering and AI)

CVIU – Computer Vision and Image Understanding, since 1972 (impact factor: 2.20)

IVC – Image and Vision Computing

TMI – IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

TIP – IEEE Transactions on Image Processing

MVA – Machine Vision and Applications

PR – Pattern Recognition

TMM – IEEE Transactions on Multimedia

TCSVT – IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

PAMI review process

Editor-in-chief (EIC) assigns papers to associate editors (AE)

AE assigns reviewers

First-round review: 3-6 months

– Accept as is

– Accept with minor revision

– Major revision

– Resubmit as new

– Reject

Second-round review: 2-4 months

– Accept as is

– Accept with minor revision

– Reject

EIC makes final decision

Overall turn-around time: 6 to 12 months

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IJCV/CVIU review process

Similar formats

CVIU has roughly the same turn-around time as PAMI

IJCV tends to have longer turn-around time

Rule of thumb: 30% additional work beyond a CVPR/ICCV/ECCV paper

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How to get your paper rejected?

Do not

– Pay attention to review process

– Put yourself as a reviewer perspective

– Put the work in right context

– Carry out sufficient amount of experiments

– Compare with state-of-the-art algorithms

– Pay attention to writing

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pay attention to review process

Learn how others/you can pick apart a paper

Learn from other’s mistakes

Learn how to write good papers

Learn what it takes to get a paper published

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Put yourself  as reviewer

What are the contributions?

Does it advance the science in the filed?

Why you should accept this paper?

Is this paper a case study?

Is this paper interesting?

What is the audience?

Does anyone care about this work?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Experimental Validation

Common data set

Killer data set

Large scale experiment

Evaluation metric

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compare with state of the art

Do your homework

Need to know what is out there

Need to show why one’s method

outperforms others, and in what way?

– speed?

– accuracy?

– easy to implement?

– general application?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Writing

Clear presentation

Terse

Careful about wording

Make claims with strong evidence

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review form

Summary

Overall Rating

– Definite accept, weakly accept, borderline, weakly reject, definite reject

Novelty

– Very original, original, minor originality, has been done before

Importance/relevance

– Of broad interest, interesting to a subarea, interesting only to a small number of attendees, out of CVPR scope

Clarity of presentation

– Reads very well, is clear enough, difficult to read, unreadable

Technical correctness

– Definite correct, probably correct but did not check completely,contains rectifiable errors, has major problems

Experimental validation

– Excellent validation or N/A (a theoretical paper), limited but convincing, lacking in some aspects, insufficient validation

Additional comments

Reviewer’s name