ECCV Review Process

Use this to reason about what happens to an ECCV paper between upload and decision. ECCV is run by the European Computer Vision Association (ECVA) with per-edition program chairs; there is no standing editorial board, and process rules are rewritten every two years — the 2026 mechanics below are verified anchors (2026-07-08), not permanent law.

The 2026 pipeline

The 2026 enforcement regime

The distinctive 2026 process fact: review quality was enforced against authors. All authors were expected to be willing to review if asked, and:

• A reviewer missing the review deadline faced desk rejection of all papers they co-authored.
• A review judged "highly irresponsible" — explicitly including LLM policy violations — triggered the same, at PC discretion.
• The LLM policy (aligned with CVPR 2026) barred using LLMs to write reviews or share substantial paper content, while allowing background research and short grammar checks; reviews were screened for violations.

Strategic consequence: your paper's risk surface includes every co-author's reviewing inbox. Track assignments like deadlines.

Who is reading

• Panels are internationally mixed with a strong European base; expect one in-niche reviewer and two adjacent-niche reviewers rather than three specialists.
• Adjacent-niche reviewers anchor on the benchmark table and the qualitative figures; the in-niche reviewer checks novelty against the last CVPR/ICCV cycle. Write and rebut for both audiences.
• ECCV's biennial cadence means reviewers compare against two years of intervening literature, including papers published after your development froze — expect and preempt "how does this compare to [March-adjacent arXiv]?" via the concurrent-work conventions in eccv-related-work.

Reading the decision mechanics

Signals that the AC discussion, not the raw scores, decides you:
- score spread >= 2 points between reviewers
- one review is short + negative (candidate for AC down-weighting)
- rebuttal directly falsified a factual claim in a review
Actions that move an AC:
- rebuttal blocks quotable into a meta-review
- reviewer-requested evidence that already existed in the submission
Actions that do not:
- appeals to effort, novelty-by-assertion, or venue prestige of prior work

After the decision

• Accept: the Springer/ECVA machine starts (eccv-camera-ready); open access appears ~4 weeks pre-conference on ecva.net.
• Reject: the biennial gap makes the reroute decision urgent — reviews arrive in June, and CVPR's November deadline is the natural next stop. Convert each review point into a revision ticket while context is fresh.
• Award structure exists (ECVA's Koenderink Prize honors a ten-year-old ECCV paper each edition) but plays no role in decisions; ignore it during review, use it for taste calibration in eccv-topic-selection.

Output format

[Stage] pre-submission / in-review / rebuttal / discussion / decided
[Panel model] <in-niche vs adjacent reviewer count, score spread>
[Enforcement exposure] <co-author reviewing assignments + status>
[AC leverage points] <what the meta-review can quote>
[Next-stage move] <one action with its date anchor>