Thank you for serving on the program committee of 3DV 2027 as a reviewer. Publications in conferences have a critical impact on scientific careers in our fields. Reviews on which acceptance or reject decisions are made are therefore of critical importance and should be written carefully. We ask that you take your duty seriously and have your reviews ready on time.
We provide guidelines to help with the reviewing process. More specific guidelines can be found in the materials of two past tutorials on reviewing:
As soon as you get your reviewing assignment, please download your papers and go through them to make sure that there is no obvious conflict with you (e.g., a paper authored by your recent collaborator from a different institution). If you feel you are in conflict with a paper, please let us know right away by emailing the Program Chairs: 3dv27-pcs [at] googlegroups [dot] com
Look for what's good or stimulating in the paper. Minor flaws can be corrected and shouldn't be a reason to reject a paper. We recommend that you embrace novel, brave concepts, even if they have not been tested on many datasets. For example, the fact that a proposed method does not exceed the state-of-the-art accuracy on an existing benchmark dataset is not grounds for rejection by itself. Acceptance and rejection decisions should not be determined solely by the method's raw performance. Rather, it is important to weigh both the novelty and potential impact of the work alongside the reported performance. Each paper that is accepted should be technically sound and make a contribution to the field.
Authors were asked to take reasonable efforts to hide their identities, including not listing their names or affiliations and omitting acknowledgments. This information will of course be included in the published version. Please see the Author Guidelines for details on how authors have been instructed to preserve anonymity, including guidelines for referencing one's own prior work. Reviewers should also make all efforts to keep their identity invisible to the authors. For example, don't give away your identity by asking the authors to cite several of your own papers.
An important general guideline is to make every effort to treat papers fairly whether or not they know (or suspect) who wrote them. Reviewers should not search for the authors of a paper, and complain that the paper is not anonymous if they happen to find them.
In line with common practice in the community, arXiv papers are not considered prior work since they have not been peer reviewed. Therefore, you should review your assigned 3DV submissions independently as if the arXiv papers didn't exist. Citations to these papers are not required and failing to cite or beat performance of arXiv papers are not sole grounds for rejection.
To improve reproducibility in AI research, we highly encourage authors to voluntarily submit their code as part of supplementary material, especially if they plan to release it upon acceptance. Reviewers may optionally check this code to ensure the paper's results are reproducible and trustworthy, but are not required to. Reviewers are also encouraged to use the Reproducibility Checklist as a guide for assessing whether a paper is reproducible or not. All code/data should be reviewed confidentially and kept private, and deleted after the review process is complete. We encourage (but do not require) that the accompanying code will be submitted with accepted papers.
Please be specific and detailed in your reviews. In the discussion of related work and references, simply saying “this is well known” or “this has been common practice in the industry for years” is not sufficient: cite specific publications, including books, or public disclosures of techniques. Similarly, claims in a review that the submitted work “has been done before” must be backed up with specific references and an explanation of how closely they are related. At the same time, for a positive review, be sure to summarize what novel aspects are most interesting in the strengths. Be specific when you suggest that the writing needs to be improved. If there is a particular section that is unclear, point it out and give suggestions for how it can be clarified. If you think the paper is out of scope for 3DV's subject areas, clearly explain why in the review. Then suggest other publication possibilities (journals, conferences, workshops) that would be a better match for the paper.
Belittling or sarcastic comments have no place in the reviewing process. The most valuable comments in a review are those that help the authors understand the shortcomings of their work and how they might improve it. Write a courteous, informative, incisive, and helpful review that you would be proud to add your name to (were it not anonymous). Avoid referring to the authors by using the phrase “you”. These phrases should be replaced by “the authors” or “the paper”. Referring to the authors as “you” can be perceived as being confrontational, even though you do not mean it this way.
As authors, we expect that for each of our own submissions, three reviewers will carefully read and fairly judge our work. Consequently, you are expected to review submissions yourself. Your reviews are essential for helping decide which papers are ready for publication. Just as important, however, is to provide feedback to the authors so that they may improve their work. Try to write your review in a way that the authors can benefit from. We suggest reading a paper and then thinking about it over the course of several days before you write your review. Please keep in mind that short reviews are unhelpful to authors, other reviewers, and Area Chairs. If you have agreed to review a paper, you should take enough time to write a thoughtful and detailed review.
The tone of your review is also important. A harshly written review will be disregarded by the authors, regardless of whether your criticisms are true. If you take care, it is always possible to word your review diplomatically while staying true to your thoughts about the paper. Put yourself in the mindset of writing to someone you wish to help, such as a respected colleague who wants your opinion on a concept or a project.
Your main critique of the paper should be written in terms of a list of strengths and weaknesses of the paper. You may use bullet points here, but most important is that you explain your arguments. Your discussion, sometimes more than your score, will help the authors, fellow reviewers, and Area Chairs understand the basis of your opinions, so please be thorough. Your reviews will be returned to the authors, so you should include specific feedback on ways the authors can improve their papers.
3DV is a small conference, but involves the very broad topic of 3D Vision that spans both computer vision and computer graphics and touches on machine learning and robotics, as well as a broad range of applications. Area Chairs and Program Chairs will first suggest reviewers, followed by an automatic assignment procedure based on the recommendations and automatically computed affinity scores. It is very likely you will be assigned a paper that may be slightly out of your specific research area. In such cases, we ask that you do the best you can to review the paper. We trust your ability to distinguish between good papers and those that are not yet ready for acceptance.
The review process of 3DV is confidential. The practice of keeping all information confidential during the review is part of the standard communication to all reviewers. When you have finished with your review, you should destroy any paper manuscript and/or supporting material you received. Misuse of confidential information is a severe professional failure, and appropriate measures will be taken when brought to the attention of the 3DV organizers, though the organization of 3DV is not and cannot be held responsible for the consequences when reviewers break confidentiality.
At 3DV 2027, reviewers are also expected to provide timely reviews. Historically, previous CVPR conferences (and ICCV, ECCV and NeurIPS, amongst others) faced challenges with some reviewers failing to meet the review submission deadlines. It came to be accepted that there was an unofficial grace period after the reviewing deadline. In some cases, reviewers failed to respond to multiple reminders and did not submit their reviews at all. This necessitated Area Chairs (ACs) to follow up diligently with late reviewers, as well as assign emergency reviewers to ensure each paper received a minimum of three reviews. Over the years, this has added to the already large workload and stress of the conference organizers. To improve the review process and uphold the conference's high standards, 3DV 2027 will strictly enforce the reviewing deadline. Any reviewer who fails to submit their assigned reviews by the deadlines (for submitting initial reviews and their final recommendation) or does not participate in discussions will face a desk rejection of all papers on which they are an author at the discretion of the PCs. This policy aims to ensure fairness and accountability across the reviewing process while reducing the burden on ACs and other conference organizers.
There will be reminder emails sent out to all reviewers as a reminder to submit reviews in a timely manner. Additionally, the co-authors of reviewers who have not submitted their reviews will also be notified that their submission may be desk rejected if all authors do not submit their reviews in time.
If you realize that you will not be able to finish your reviews on time, please contact the Program Chairs and the responsible Area Chair as soon as possible by posting a comment to the paper on OpenReview. We are willing to grant a grace period of a few days for submitting reviews late only if notified sufficiently in advance.
At 3DV 2027, reviewers are expected to provide fair and thoughtful reviews that demonstrate meaningful engagement with the submission. Highly irresponsible reviewing includes: unreasonably short reviews that fail to reference specific technical content from the paper; reviews containing only generic comments that could apply to any submission without addressing the paper's actual contribution; reviews with demonstrable factual errors about the paper's methodology or results that indicate superficial reading; reviews generated by or substantially assisted by Large Language Models, and submitting reviews late or not participating in discussions. This policy does not penalize reviewers for holding different technical opinions, missing minor details, writing concise but substantive reviews, or having legitimate disagreements with other reviewers or Area Chairs. If a review is flagged as highly irresponsible, it will undergo an oversight process managed by the Program Chairs (PCs). Any reviewer whose review is deemed to be “highly irresponsible” will face a desk rejection of all papers on which they are an author at the discretion of the PCs.
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 can use an LLM to do background research or to check short phrases for clarity. The use of grammar checker software based on LLMs is allowed.
Enforcement: Reviews and meta-reviews will be checked for LLM policy violations. If a review is flagged as a possible violation, the review will enter the oversight process for irresponsible review violations. If it is determined that the review violates this policy, the papers submitted by the reviewer will be desk rejected at the discretion of the PCs.
| Abstract Registration | Aug 28, 2026 | |
|---|---|---|
| Paper Submission | Aug 28, 2026 | |
| Supplementary Material | Sep 02, 2026 | |
| Preliminary Notification | Oct 27, 2026 | |
| Final Notification | Dec 02, 2026 | |
| Main conference | Apr 6-9, 2027 |