Guidelines for WACV 2026 - Area Chairs
Email Program Chairs at:
First, thank you for agreeing to be an area chair (AC) for WACV 2026. We truly appreciate your time and effort in helping with the reviewing and decision-making process.
[PLEASE READ] Application Papers vs Algorithm Papers
Application papers must be evaluated on systems-level innovation, novelty of the domain and comparative assessment. They should not be evaluated solely on algorithmic novelty (i.e., it is okay to have algorithmic novelty, but it is also okay not to have it). Examples of systems-level innovation are: 1) A new task; i.e., does this paper deliver an interesting application of computer vision that the community has never seen before? 2) A new way of applying an existing application to an old task. 3) A new way of benchmarking the performance of existing methods. Recent examples of WACV application-track papers:
- CharacterGAN: Few-Shot Keypoint Character Animation and Reposing
- DeepCSR: A 3D Deep Learning Approach For Cortical Surface Reconstruction
- OpenFace: An open source facial behavior analysis toolkit
- FuturePose - Mixed Reality Martial Arts Training Using Real-Time 3D Human Pose Forecasting With a RGB Camera
Algorithms papers must be evaluated according to the standard conference criteria including algorithmic novelty and quantified evaluation against current, alternative approaches. They should not be evaluated solely on the basis of systems-level innovation (i.e., it is okay to have systems-level novelty, but it is also okay not to have it). Algorithms papers will be similar in style to other major computer vision conferences (e.g., CVPR, ICCV, ECCV). Recent examples include:
- Hole-robust wireframe Detection
- Agree to Disagree: When Deep Learning Models With Identical Architectures Produce Distinct Explanations
- Understanding Convolution for Semantic Segmentation
In the past, some reviewers have recommended rejecting application papers based on their lacking algorithmic novelty. It will probably happen again this year and we (ACs) should remind reviewers about the evaluation criteria. Hence, we kindly ask ACs to pay special attention to the reviews of application papers. Please use your best judgment to handle them, and, when needed, please overrule the reviewers' recommendations.
WACV 2026 Review Schedule (AC duties are denoted in bold)
Round 1:
Paper registration deadline: Fri, July 11, 2025
Paper and supplementary submission deadline: Fri, July 18, 2025
Papers assigned to ACs + Reviewers: Mon, July 28, 2025
Reviews due (from Reviewers): Fri, Aug 15, 2025
- ACs chase reviewers
- AC “pair meeting”
Decisions and meta-reviews due (from ACs): Fri, August 29, 2025
- PCs chase ACs
- Release meta-reviews
R1 decision day: Thu, September 4, 2025
Camera-ready deadline for accepted R1 papers: Thu, September 18, 2025
Rebuttal+Revision deadline: Fri, September 19, 2025
Camera ready deadline for accepted R1 revision papers: Thu, November 27th
Round 2:
Paper registration deadline: Fri, September 12, 2025
Paper and supplementary submission deadline: Fri, September 19, 2025
Papers assigned to ACs + AC Pairs(first) + Reviewers(second): Mon, September 29, 2025
Reviews due (from Reviewers): Fri, October 17, 2025
- ACs chase reviewers
- AC “pair meeting”
Decisions and meta-reviews due (from ACs): Fri, October 31, 2025
- PCs chase ACs
- release meta-reviews
R2 Decision Day: Fri, November 6, 2025
Camera ready deadline for accepted R2 papers: Thu, November 27, 2025
Duty to Act as a Responsible Area Chair
All area chairs are required to have an up-to-date OpenReview profile to enable matching submissions to ACs. Further, area chairs are obliged to provide timely and quality metareviews. ACs who have submitted papers and are assigned metareviews who do not complete timely, quality metareviews (as judged by the PCs) may have their submitted papers desk rejected.
First Round Submissions
Action Item 1. Check papers for desk rejections, conflicts of interest, etc. Deadline: July 30, 2025
Please screen papers for formatting issues, anonymity violations, and potential conflicts of interest (COIs).
- Formatting: Please check all paper PDFs to ensure they follow the Author Guidelines, e.g., that they are limited to eight pages, including figures and tables, in the WACV style. Note that it is OK if the authors did not put paper ID or "Algorithms/Applications Track" on the paper.
- Anonymity: Make sure the authors did not put their names on the papers or in the supplemental materials, including in code or readme files.
- COI: In rare cases, you may find a conflict of interest with an assignment. Please report this immediately to the PCs so that we can reassign the paper to another AC triplet.
If you identify a paper that needs to be desk rejected, please send a confidential note related to that paper to the ACs through OpenReview.
Action Item 2. Get three reviews per paper & initiate discussions
July 28 – August 15: ACs check for reviews
August 15 – August 22: ACs chase late reviewers, find emergency reviewers
Reviewers should have completed their reviews by August 15. The program chairs will send out several reminder emails in an effort to remind reviewers to complete their reviews on time. Our goal is to make sure all papers have three (3) reviews.
Action item 2.1. First of all, please read through the Ethics for Reviewing Papers section of the WACV 2026 Reviewer Guidelines because those will also apply to ACs when ACs interact with reviewers. Some of the highlights are copied and pasted below.
- Do not give away your identity by asking the authors to cite several of your own papers.
- Avoid referring to the authors in the second person (“you”). It is best to avoid the term “the authors” as well, because you are reviewing their work and not the person. Instead, use the third person (“the paper”). Referring to the authors as “you” can be perceived as being confrontational, even though you may not mean it this way.
- Use Neutral Pronouns: If it is necessary to refer to authors or reviewers directly, use neutral pronouns or names, for example, you could say “the authors” or “they” and “R1” or “the reviewer” rather than “he” or “she”.
Action item 2.2. Check for reviews, chase late reviewers, and find emergency reviewers if needed
July 28 – August 15: ACs check for reviews
August 15 – August 22: ACs chase late reviewers, find emergency reviewers
Until August 15: Please have a quick read of the reviews to make sure they are reasonable in their tone and length. If a reviewer has written an inappropriate review (e.g., very short reviews, inappropriate or bad language, etc.), please contact the reviewer and ask them to update their review. The reviewers have all been given instructions at the following link: WACV 2026 Reviewer Guidelines. You can start checking reviews anytime they come in but do make sure to check all of them by August 15 to catch any issues. Most reviewers will complete their reviews
only on that last day.
Immediately after the review deadline (August 15th): There will always be reviewers who will not complete their reviews for various reasons.
- If reviews are not in by August 15th morning, please immediately send reminders to reviewers and ask them to reply to your message.
- If the reviewers did not respond to your reminder emails and the reviews are not in by August 18th morning, please find "emergency reviewers" for the papers missing reviews. The emergency reviewers are supposed to perform the review within 24 - 48 hours before the deadline. Asking qualified people you know to act as emergency reviewers is an effective way to get emergency reviews. Note that those people will be checked for conflicts of interest with a paper before being assigned a paper to review. If you want to add someone as a new reviewer, please send their name, email or OpenReview ID, and Google Scholar page to:
It is okay to use your personal email to contact the late reviewers and emergency reviewers, if it helps.
Action Item 3. Early accept decisions and AC pair meetings August 22 – Aug 29 - ACs make early accept decisions
Each AC Pair must
- meet to discuss the papers and reach an accept, revise or reject decision and
- also make recommendations on the format (oral, spotlight, poster) in the event there are multiple presentation styles at WACV 2026
Making a decision:
- You have been selected as an area chair based on your experience and expertise in computer vision and its applications. We trust you to use your best judgment to make a decision on the papers assigned to you.
- When making your decision, please consider the reviewers' comments carefully. In some cases, you may need to have a look at the paper to form your own opinion, especially in the case of mixed reviews (i.e. when the reviewers' recommendations are not in agreement). Please remember that the authors have selected between two different tracks "application" vs. "algorithm". Applied papers should have the emphasis placed on the novelty of the application, while algorithmic/theory papers should be judged more on their technical contributions.
- Overruling all three reviewers to make a decision on a paper is not acceptable. If you strongly feel in a decision that does not reflect the reviewers (e.g. accepting a paper with majority rejects or rejecting a paper with majority accept) make sure to discuss it with the PCs through email.
- Revision should be selected during round 1 when the area chairs believe that the reviewers point out issues that could be reasonably addressed in the two week revision period.
- Please note that acceptance/rejection is a final decision. In case of acceptance, the authors will not submit a revision or a rebuttal but have a chance to include minor changes for the camera-ready deadline. A paper qualifies as an early accept, e.g., but not exclusively, if reviewers agree on acceptance and the remarks are minor enough to be included in the final camera-ready version. The rejection option should be selected when the reviews raise substantial revisions required that cannot be addressed quickly. The revision period will last only for a little more than two weeks, so substantial revisions are typically not feasible in this timeframe.
Writing a meta-review
The meta-reviews are the MOST CRUCIAL aspect of the review process. This is where the Area Chair justifies their recommendation to accept/revise/reject (Round 1) and accept/reject (Round 2) a paper. These meta-reviews should highlight why the decision was reached. If all reviewers agree on a paper, this consolidation report can be simple, but feel free to encourage authors and provide constructive feedback. If there is disagreement on the reviews, it is the AC's job to clarify why you decide to side with either an accept or reject in the face of mixed reviews. Overruling all three reviewers to make a decision on a paper is not acceptable. If you strongly feel in a decision that does not reflect the reviewers (e.g. accepting a paper with majority rejects or rejecting a paper with majority accept) make sure to discuss it with the PCs through email.
Important guidelines:
- The golden rule is to write meta-reviews in a way that you as an author would appreciate. No one likes to have their paper rejected, but this experience is even worse when it is done without proper justification and professionalism.
- The goal of the meta-review is primarily to reconcile and adjudicate the views of the reviewers. It is not your job to write a fourth review of the paper, and unless absolutely necessary, you should avoid bringing in additional considerations beyond what is found in the three reviews. However, in the case of mixed reviews, you can add your opinion of the paper to help break the tie. Be sure to explain carefully in your consolidation report how you came to this decision.
- As mentioned before, it will be rare for you to come to a conclusion that is quite different from that of the three reviewers (e.g., reviews all agree to accept, but you reject the paper). If you feel you need to overrule the reviewers, please bring this to the PCs’ attention.
Meta-review templates
1. Rejected Paper – consistent reviews
This paper was reviewed by three experts in the field. The recommendations are (write scores here - e.g. Reject, Reject and Strong Reject). The reviewers raised many concerns regarding the paper, e.g. [RECAP A FEW CONCERNS, SUCH AS NOVELTY, EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS, ETC]. Considering the reviewers' concerns, we regret that the paper cannot be recommended for acceptance at this time. The authors are encouraged to consider the reviewers' comments when revising the paper for submission elsewhere.
2. Rejected Paper *with mixed reviews* - please acknowledge that the reviews are mixed. This paper was reviewed by three experts in the field. The paper received mixed reviews [write scores here - e.g., Accept, Neutral, and Reject]. The reviewers raised the following concerns [RECAP CONCERNS]. Based on the reviews, [give a reason why you side with reviewers' recommending not to accept the paper - in this case, you are welcome to read the paper and add in your opinion as a tiebreaker]. While the paper clearly has merit, the decision is not to recommend acceptance. The authors are encouraged to consider the reviewers' comments when revising the paper for submission elsewhere.
3. Revision and resubmission (Round 1 only)
This paper was reviewed by three experts in the field. The paper received the following recommendations [write scores here - e.g. Accept, Accept and Strong Reject]. The reviewers expressed the following concerns [RECAP A FEW CONCERNS, SUCH AS NOVELTY, EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS, ETC]. Considering the nature of the reviewers' comments, it is felt that such concerns can be addressed in a revision of the paper. The decision is to ask the authors to make a revision and resubmit the paper in the 2nd round. The revised paper will then be reconsidered by the same reviewers and Area Chair.
4. Accept, Early Accept
This paper was reviewed by three experts in the field. Based on the reviewers' feedback, the decision is to recommend the paper for acceptance to WACV 2026. The reviewers did raise some valuable concerns that should be addressed in the final camera-ready version of the paper. The authors are encouraged to make the necessary changes to the best of their ability. We congratulate the authors on the acceptance of their paper!
FAQ for Pair Meetings
* How should ACs prepare before coming to the meeting?
Each AC should have reviewed their own stack, be ready to discuss each paper, and have a draft decision (accept vs revise vs reject) for each paper in mind before the meeting and a justification for the decision. The PCs recommend creating a spreadsheet with this information and sharing it with your AC pair prior to the meeting.
* Do we need to read papers and reviews from the shared category?
You do not need to read the shared papers/reviews in advance of the meeting unless explicitly requested by the other ACs in your pair.
* Do we need to bring drafts of the meta reviews to the meeting? Or write them after the meeting?
This is up to each pair, but in general, it is a good idea to have draft meta reviews for your own papers ready prior to the meeting.
* What are the typical agendas in the pair meeting?
During the pair meeting, each AC should discuss papers in their stack and share their initial decisions. More time should be spent on borderline cases and oral/spotlight decisions, including requesting the other ACs to take a closer look at the paper + reviews as needed.
* What does primary AC do in the meeting?
The primary AC should present each of their papers, summarize the reviews and provide a justification for their proposed decisions. Less time can be spent on easy papers (e.g., clear rejects). More time should be spent on borderline cases and oral/spotlight decisions.
* What does secondary AC do in the meeting, e.g., raising questions about the decision? The secondary ACs should share their thoughts about the primary AC’s papers (i.e., whether they agree/disagree with the initial decision), as well as take a closer look at any papers that the primary AC requests help on.
* Do we need to keep a note on the decisions (in case the final decision in OpenReview is different from the discussion)?
This is not necessary. The final decision *should* align with the discussion; i.e., the pair should work together to reach a consensus on any accept/reject decisions. A consensus does not necessarily have to be reached for spotlight/oral decisions.
* Finally, how long should I schedule the meeting for?
This is up to each pair to decide, but at least ~2 hours should be expected.
Second Round Submissions
Action Item 4. Screen papers for desk rejections, conflicts of interest, etc. Deadline: Oct 3th, 2025
Please screen papers for formatting issues, anonymity violations, and potential conflicts of interest (COIs).
- Formatting: Please check all paper PDFs to ensure they follow the Author Guidelines, e.g., that they are limited to eight pages, including figures and tables, in the WACV style. Note that it is OK if the authors
- did not put paper ID or "Algorithms/Applications Track" in the paper,
- used the WACV 2025 Latex template, or
- had their right ruler tightly sticking to the text.
- Anonymity: Make sure the authors did not put their names on the papers or the supplemental materials.
- COI: In rare cases, you may find a conflict of interest with an assignment. Please report these papers, too.
Please report issues found above to the PCs using a confidential note for the specific paper in OpenReview.
It is also a good idea to read the abstract (and possibly other sections, especially the introduction) to get an idea of what the paper is about. You will likely be assigned papers slightly outside your area of expertise. Please do your best to handle them unless you feel strongly against an assignment.
Action Item 5. Get three (3) reviews per paper
Reviewers should have completed their reviews by Fri, October 17th, 2025. The program chairs will send out several reminder emails in an effort to remind reviewers to complete their reviews on time. Our goal is to make sure all papers have at least three (3) reviews.
Action item 5.1. Check for reviews, chase late reviewers, and find emergency reviewers if needed
Sep 26th - October 17th, 2025: ACs check for reviews
October 17th – October 22nd: ACs chase late reviewers and find emergency reviewers
Please have a quick read of the reviews to make sure they are reasonable in their tone and length. If a reviewer has written an inappropriate review (e.g., very short reviews, inappropriate or bad language, etc.), please contact the reviewer and ask them to update their review. The reviewers have all been given instructions at the following link: WACV 2026 Reviewer Guidelines. You can start checking reviews anytime they come in but do make sure to check all of them by Oct 17th to catch any issues.
Immediately after the review deadline (October 17th, Friday): There will always be reviewers who will not complete their reviews for various reasons.
- If reviews are not in by October 17th morning, please immediately send reminders to reviewers and ask them to reply to your message.
- If the reviewers did not respond to your reminder emails and the reviews are not in by Oct 20 morning, please find "emergency reviewers" for the papers missing reviews. The emergency reviewers are supposed to perform the review within 24-48 hours. If you want to add someone as a new reviewer, please send 1) their name, 2) email or OpenReview ID, 3) Google Scholar page, and 4) paper IDs they will review to
It is okay to use your personal email to contact the late reviewers and emergency reviewers, if it helps. Note that using your personal connections to find emergency reviewers can be effective and is allowed. All emergency reviewers will be checked for conflicts of interest with papers before having papers assigned to them.
Action item 5.2. Make decisions on Round 1 revisions. All Round 1 submissions will have a chance to submit rebuttals, but Round 2 revisions will not. Hence, in OpenReview, you can start to make final decisions (Accept vs. Reject) about the Round 1 revisions after they receive three or more reviews (about the revision, not the original Round 1 submission).
Action item 5.3. If you haven’t, please read through Ethics for Reviewing Papers in WACV 2026 Reviewer Guidelines because those will also apply to ACs when ACs interact with reviewers. Some of the highlights are copied and pasted below.
- Do not give away your identity by asking the authors to cite several of your own papers.
- Avoid referring to the authors in the second person (“you”). It is best to avoid the term “the authors” as well, because you are reviewing their work and not the person. Instead, use the third person (“the paper”). Referring to the authors as “you” can be perceived as being confrontational, even though you may not mean it this way.
- Use Neutral Pronouns: If it is necessary to refer to authors or reviewers directly, use neutral pronouns or names, for example, you could say “the authors” or “they” and “R1” or “the reviewer” rather than “he” or “she”.
Action Item 6. Pair meetings & final decisions
October 24 – October 31 - AC pair meetings
October 31*- ACs make final decisions in OpenReview
Action Item 6.1 Pair meetings (October 24 – October 31). Each AC Pair must
- meet to discuss the papers and reach an accept or reject decision and ● recommend the format (oral, spotlight, poster) in the event there are multiple presentation styles at WACV 2026.
Each AC must enter in OpenReview a meta-review and recommendation for their papers. A secondary AC must review and verify the meta-review and decision in OpenReview. The spreadsheet below (link to be added later) shows the pair assignments. For your papers, you are the “Primary AC”. For shared papers, you are the “Secondary AC”.
WACV 2026 R2 AC Pair Signup
Round 2 new submissions: Will be provided by the Program Chairs after AC assignments Round 1 revisions (ACs from R1 will be in the same AC pairs as in R1): Will be provided by the Program Chairs after AC assignments
Link to the AC pairs spreadsheet will be added here after pairs are assigned.
The “lead” AC (Column B) is responsible for organizing the pair meeting. Please coordinate with your pair to schedule a meeting as soon as possible and update the spreadsheet with the date, time, and (e.g., zoom) link for your meeting. One of the program chairs may join your pair meeting, but you do not need to wait for the PC to start or end the meetings.
FAQ for the pair meetings
Action Item 6.2 Final decisions (Oct 31). Each AC must submit in OpenReview a meta-review and recommendation for their papers by Oct 31, 2025.
Round 2 papers will not have a rebuttal period.
Round 1 revisions will have a rebuttal in the form of a response document uploaded along with a revised manuscript. If you have made decisions on these revisions, you may update them after the pair meeting, if needed.
In some cases, you may need to look at the paper to form your own opinion, especially in the case of mixed reviews (i.e. when the reviewers' recommendations are not in agreement).
Please remember that the authors have selected between two different tracks: "application" vs. "algorithm". Applied papers should have the emphasis placed on the novelty of the application, while algorithmic/theory papers should be judged more on their technical contributions.
Helpful hints on using OpenReview as an AC can be found here.