Eccv submission

ECCV Submission

Use this to run the final audit on an ECCV upload. The 2026 window has closed (paper deadline March 5, 2026), so treat every number below as a 2026 anchor for post-mortems and 2028 planning, and reopen the next cycle's Dates and Submission Policies pages before quoting anything as current.

The 2026 deadline chain (verified 2026-07-08)

ECCV runs a two-step front door with a trailing supplement — three separate cutoffs, and the clock was CET, not AoE:

Step	2026 date	Trap it creates
Paper registration on OpenReview	February 26, 2026 (profiles completable to March 2, 11pm CET)	No registration record, no paper slot a week later
Full paper PDF	March 5, 2026, 11pm CET	Teams planning in AoE lose up to a day; no extensions were offered
Supplementary material	March 12, 2026	The paper freezes first; the supplement cannot repair it

Aggregators disagree by one day on the paper deadline (March 5 vs March 6) because of timezone conversion — another reason to read the official Dates page in CET.

Format gate

• LNCS single-column, 14 pages including figures and tables; pages beyond 14 may contain only cited references.
• The 2026 author kit stated the template changed after 2024 — a recycled ECCV 2024 .cls is a compliance risk, not a convenience.
• Single-column LNCS absorbs figures very differently from a two-column draft: full-width figures are cheap, side-by-side panels are not. Budget pages in the real template from the first draft.
• Submission platform: OpenReview, group thecvf.com/ECCV/2026/Conference.

Policy gate

• Dual submission: ECCV 2026 defined a "publication" as any peer-reviewed, accepted written work longer than four pages excluding references; arXiv preprints and technical reports did not count. Violations meant rejection and a report to the other venue.
• arXiv: posting is not an anonymity violation, but the submission must not cite the authors' own public codebase.
• Embargo: papers publicly identified as ECCV submissions during the review embargo faced summary rejection — the media rule bans naming the venue, not discussing the work.
• Reviewer duty: all authors were expected to be willing to review; an author whose assigned reviews were late or "highly irresponsible" (including LLM-written) risked desk rejection of all their submissions.

Pre-upload sweep

□ Registration record exists for this exact title/author set (Feb deadline)
□ PDF built from the current-cycle author kit, 14 pages + refs only
□ CET deadline entered in the team calendar, not AoE
□ No self-identifying codebase links, acknowledgements, or grant strings
□ Dual-submission attestation true under the 4-page definition
□ Nobody on the author list has an unresolved reviewing assignment
□ Supplement plan for the +7-day deadline drafted before the paper freeze

Severity ladder

Failure	2026 consequence
Missed registration step	Cannot submit at all
Page 15 contains a figure caption	Desk rejection
Venue named on social media during embargo	Summary rejection
Duplicate submission under the 4-page rule	Rejection plus report to the sibling venue
Co-author's irresponsible review	Desk rejection of every paper they are on

The last row is the distinctly ECCV-2026 hazard: your submission's fate is coupled to your co-authors' reviewing behavior, so confirm each co-author's reviewer status during the audit, not after decisions.

Missed-window arithmetic

Because ECCV is biennial, a slipped March deadline costs two years at this venue. The realistic reroutes from a March miss: BMVC (spring deadline), WACV (summer deadline), CVPR (November deadline), ICCV (next odd-year March). Route with eccv-workflow rather than rushing a broken upload.

Output format

[ECCV upload verdict] go / fix first / reroute
[Deadline-chain status] <registration / paper / supplement, with CET times>
[Format violations] <page 15 content, template vintage, column abuse>
[Policy violations] <dual-submission / embargo / anonymity / reviewer duty>
[Ordered fixes] <what to change before the CET cutoff>