Skip to yearly menu bar Skip to main content


Overview: What’s new?

 

OpenReview: ECCV 2026 will be using OpenReview to manage submissions. To ensure effective paper-reviewer matching and accurate conflict-of-interest detection, all participants in the ECCV 2026 review process must maintain complete and current OpenReview profiles.

 

Authors acting as reviewers: Given the growth of the number of paper submissions, and following conventions of other computer vision conferences, we expect all authors to be willing to serve as reviewers if asked to do so. Also see the Submission Policies.

 

Contribution Types: As part of the submission process, authors are asked to select one primary Contribution Type that best characterizes the main focus of their paper. This selection is intended to help align reviewer expectations with the nature of your work and to support fair, appropriate, and context-aware evaluation. During registration, reviewers may select one or more Contribution Types of papers that they would prefer to review (with Algorithms/General as the default option). These preferences are not binding and do not guarantee that you will only be assigned papers of those types, but they will increase the likelihood that you will be reviewing a paper that better matches your style. Also see the detailed guidelines for authors, reviewers, and area chairs. 

 

LLM policy for reviewers: In line with CVPR 2026, Large language models (LLMs) are NOT allowed to be used to write reviews or meta-reviews, whether it is run locally or via an API. Specifically,

  • You cannot use an LLM to generate content for you. The review needs to be based on your own judgment.
  • You cannot share substantial content from the paper or your review with an LLM. This means that, for example, you cannot use an LLM to translate a review.
  • You can use an LLM to do background research or to check short phrases for clarity/grammar.

Also see the Reviewer Guidelines and the Reviewer FAQs.

 

Risk of desk rejection / removal from the proceedings:

  • Incomplete author registration will result in desk rejection. 
  • Authors may use any tools they find productive in preparing a paper, but must be aware that they are responsible for any misrepresentation, factual inaccuracy, or plagiarism in their paper. Glaring examples of citations to non-existent material can be desk-rejected.
  • If a submission is found to contain prompt injection, it may be desk-rejected without review, and the authors may be subject to further sanctions. 
  • Labeling a non-anomized preprint as an ECCV submission places it at risk of desk rejection.
  • Any work explicitly identified as an ECCV submission cannot be discussed with the media and cannot be advertised and discussed on social media until the final decision is released to authors. 
  • Any reviewer whose review is deemed to be "highly irresponsible" (including violation of LLM policy) will face a desk rejection of all papers on which they are an author.
  • Any area chair who is deemed "highly irresponsible" will similarly face a desk rejection of all papers on which they are an author.
  • All papers that select Datasets/Benchmarks as their Contribution Type are subject to the Dataset Release Policy. By choosing this category, authors confirm that the proposed dataset and/or benchmark will be publicly available by the time of camera-ready submission. Failure to meet the requirements of the  Dataset Release Policy will result in the removal of the paper from the conference proceedings.
  • We expect each paper to be presented in person by an author (or an authorized delegate). Papers, where none of the authors (or an authorized delegate) is present (and no justification was communicated to the Program Chairs), might be removed from the conference proceedings.

For further details, please see the Submission Policies, the Author FAQs, the Reviewer Guidelines, the Reviewer FAQs, and the Area Chair Guidelines.

 

External links: Authors are not allowed to include external links (e.g., to webpages, images, or videos) in submissions, supplementary material, and rebuttal when the links expand content and subvert the reviewing process. Such links risk violating anonymity, breaching the media ban, or bypassing length and deadline restrictions. All content must be self-contained within the submission and supplementary files. Also see the Author FAQs.