Wacv submission

WACV Submission

Run this audit in the two weeks before a WACV round deadline. The specifics below are the WACV 2026/2027 cycles as read on 2026-07-09; chairs rewrite details each edition, and WACV uniquely runs two rounds, so reopen the current Author Guidelines, Dates page, and the correct OpenReview round group at wacv.thecvf.com before acting on any number here.

First decision: which round, which track

Two fields on the OpenReview form change everything downstream, and both are chosen before you write a word of the audit:

1. Round 1 or Round 2. They are different OpenReview groups. Round 1 (reported paper deadline June 26, 2026 for WACV 2027) gives you a rebuttal and the Revise-and-Resubmit safety net — a paper that is close but not done can be invited back rather than killed. Round 2 (reported August 28, 2026) is Accept/Reject with no rebuttal; it is for polished work and for revised Round 1 papers. Submitting a borderline paper straight to Round 2 throws away the mechanism WACV built to help it.
2. Applications or Algorithms track. The two tracks are reviewed against different criteria (systems-level innovation and comparative assessment vs algorithmic novelty and matched-baseline evaluation). Pick the track where the contribution is stronger, and make the first page argue for that lens — a mis-tracked paper draws a reviewer asking the wrong question, which is a fast route to Revise and Resubmit.

Format discipline, WACV flavor

The cap is 8 pages including figures and tables, in the WACV style, with extra pages for cited references only. That "including figures" clause makes a qualitative grid or a result table a page-budget line item, not a decoration. Build from the current WACV author kit unmodified; treat any style-file edit, margin nudge, or font substitution as a desk-reject trigger. Every author needs a valid OpenReview profile by the round deadline — an incomplete profile on the advisor added late or the intern who wrote one module is desk-reject exposure for the whole paper.

Anonymity and the anonymized supplement

WACV is double-blind: reviewers should not be able to infer authorship "beyond reasonable doubt" from the paper or the supplement. Anonymize acknowledgements (no co-workers, grant IDs), PDF metadata, self-citations (third person), filenames, and any movie titles or overlays in supplementary videos; do not link to sites that identify the authors. A technical report / arXiv preprint is handled under the current prior-publication rule — check it rather than assuming, and never rely on an external link to carry review content.

# Mechanical sweep on the final build, ten minutes before upload
pdftotext paper.pdf - | grep -nEi 'github\.com|drive\.google|project page|our (prior|previous) work' | head
pdfinfo paper.pdf | grep -Ei 'author|creator|producer'      # identity in metadata
grep -rn 'vspace\|\\addtolength\|geometry' main.tex         # style-tampering tells
pdftotext paper.pdf - | awk 'END{print NR" lines extracted"}'   # sanity: text present, not raster

Desk-reject and triage table

Finding	Severity at WACV	Recoverable?
Coauthor without a valid OpenReview profile at the round deadline	Desk reject	Only before that deadline
Page 9 contains anything besides references	Rejected without review	Only before the round deadline
Style file modified / margins compressed	Rejected without review	Fix and rebuild
Identity leak (metadata, acknowledgements, linked repo, video overlay)	Desk reject	Sweep before upload
Wrong track for the contribution	Not a reject, but Revise-and-Resubmit risk	Re-frame first page before deadline
Same work under review elsewhere in violation of the dual-submission rule	Administrative rejection	Withdraw one venue first
Borderline paper sent straight to Round 2	No rebuttal, no R&R net	Prefer Round 1 next time

Final-week sequence

1. Confirm the round and track fields; they set every other decision.
2. Freeze the 8-page body; late edits go to the supplement queue, not the main PDF.
3. Rebuild from a clean checkout of the WACV author kit; verify no local style patches leaked in and pages 9+ are references only.
4. Run the mechanical sweep above; treat every hit as a blocker.
5. Confirm every coauthor's OpenReview profile is valid, and that the OpenReview abstract matches the PDF abstract verbatim.
6. Upload, re-download, and read your own submission cold — including checking figures at print zoom, since applications reviewers judge qualitative results visually.

Reverify each cycle

• Both round deadlines and whether the two-round model still holds for the target year.
• The page cap and whether references-only overflow still applies.
• The track definitions and review criteria (Applications vs Algorithms).
• The prior-publication / arXiv rule and the dual-submission window.
• Supplementary size/format caps (not fetchable for 2026 — 待核实).

Output format

[WACV submission] ready / blocked / at-risk
[Round] R1 (rebuttal + R&R net) / R2 (Accept-Reject, no rebuttal) — chosen: <one>
[Track] Applications / Algorithms — first page argues for it: yes/no
[Profiles] all coauthors valid on OpenReview: yes/no
[Format] pages used (of 8 incl. figures/tables) · refs-only overflow ok
[Anonymity/links] clean / violations: <list>
[Fix queue] <ordered blockers>