Analysis of Reviews for CVPR 2012

Peer reviewing is an important component of academic conferences used for quality assurance and maintaining high quality of published work. Reviewing papers can be a relatively challenging and time-consuming task. Unfortunately, given the anonymous nature of the reviewing process, there is little incentive to write high quality reviews. While most reviewers do spend consierable effort and write high quality reviews, there is a non-negligible number of lower quality reviews, at least in the authors' perception. In a post-CVPR 2011 survey, the quality of reviews was found to be of concern to a relatievly large number of people. In order to better evaluate reviewers, we conducted an author survey as part of CVPR 2012. Through the survey, we have a measure of reviewing quality, which can help to identify systematic problems or to show that problems are rare.

Based on the data collected from the conference, we have created a calculator to compute your chances of acceptance and getting an oral presentation based on your review scores.

Enter your review scores below to find out:

Reviewer 1:	Reviewer 2:	Reviewer 3:
Definite Accept Weak Accept Borderline Weak Reject Definite Reject	Definite Accept Weak Accept Borderline Weak Reject Definite Reject	Definite Accept Weak Accept Borderline Weak Reject Definite Reject

Probability of acceptance:
Probability of oral:
Number of papers with this score:

Disclaimer: The above values vary from year to year and we cannot guarantee their accuracy for any given year. They are meant to serve as a rough guideline.