Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for volunteering your time to review for CVIS 2025. The success and quality of the CVIS technical program rely heavily on the dedication and expertise of our reviewers, and we truly appreciate your contribution.

This document outlines the expectations and guidelines for all reviewers participating in CVIS 2025.
Please take a moment to review the instructions for signing up on OpenReview here.

Instructions

Each accepted paper should be technically sound, clearly written, and supported by reasonable experiments or evaluation. Minor flaws that can be easily corrected should not be a reason for rejection.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, fair, and specific feedback that helps authors strengthen their work and develop as researchers. Focus on what is valuable in the paper and offer suggestions for how it can be improved.

All reviews should be written in a professional and respectful tone.
Remember that the review process is double-blind — please avoid any attempts to guess or reveal author identities. Maintain confidentiality and do not share papers or discussions outside the review process.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should base their acceptance or rejection recommendations primarily on the paper’s technical correctness, clarity, and the soundness of its experiments or evaluation.

As this is a student research–focused venue, the review process is intended to be both evaluative and educational. Reviews should provide constructive feedback that helps authors strengthen their work and grow as researchers.

The following sections outline the core criteria for acceptance or rejection, along with example questions to guide your evaluation.

Technical Soundness

  • Are the methods or arguments technically correct and logically supported?
  • Are assumptions reasonable and clearly stated?
  • Does the paper demonstrate an understanding of the relevant concepts?

Clarity and Presentation

  • Is the paper clearly written and well organized?
  • Can the main ideas and results be understood by readers who are not experts in the exact topic?
  • Are figures, tables, and explanations easy to follow?

Experimentation and Evaluation

  • Are the experiments or analyses appropriate for the stated goals?
  • Are results presented clearly and interpreted correctly?
  • Even if results are preliminary, do they reasonably support the conclusions?

Novelty or Originality

  • Does the paper propose a new idea, method, or perspective?
  • If not, does it apply existing ideas in a thoughtful or educational way?

Significance and Potential Impact

  • Could the work lead to meaningful follow-up research, tools, or applications?
  • Does it show promise for developing the author’s future research direction?

Treat these as developmental feedback areas, not reasons for rejection. Your goal is to guide authors toward stronger and more impactful future research.

The goal of this conference is to train and encourage student researchers.
Please emphasize constructive, specific, and encouraging feedback.
Focus on helping authors understand how to strengthen both their technical work and their communication skills.