This document provides detailed guidelines to reviewers for MICCAI 2020. We believe it is important to summarize what makes a good MICCAI review and some of the expectations from you as a reviewer. We also include the rules that MICCAI 2020 adopts for paper anonymization as part of its double-blind peer review process. Please read these guidelines as part of the overall MICCAI 2020 review process document.
The role of a reviewer is to identify excellent papers that the MICCAI community must hear about. It is not to reward authors for their hard work and dedication. As such, the review should tell the program committee which papers are exciting and could have a great impact on the field. A good review expresses an opinion about the paper and backs it up with details on strengths and weaknesses of the paper.
The components of the reviewing form are as follows:
Before submitting a finished report, a wise referee asks, "Would I be embarrassed if this were to appear in print with my name on it?”
Historically, we have a very large number of papers in Medical Image Computing but not so many dealing with Computer-assisted interventions. To ensure that we only accept the best MIC papers, and also select an appropriate spectrum of CAI papers in the mix, please keep the following points in mind while reviewing.
MIC-based papers: When reviewing MIC based MICCAI papers, we would like to see:
In particular the following questions should be asked when evaluating MIC-based papers:
CAI-based papers: We particularly encourage submissions of papers relating to the implementation of, and training for, computer-assisted Intervention approaches. In particular, we wish to highlight the use of Medical Image Computing techniques that have become integral components of Computer-Assisted Intervention. We encourage technologies, such as point-of-care imaging, that are suitable to make healthcare more accessible. Areas considered significant in a CAI paper include:
All papers should discuss limitations of proposed systems and provide a clear description of how the data used for the study were acquired.
Formatting: Please ensure that the paper adheres to the submission guidelines described in Author Guidelines.
Confidentiality: You have the responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the ideas represented in the papers you review. MICCAI submissions are by their very nature not published documents. The work is considered new or proprietary by the authors. Authors are allowed to submit a novel research manuscript that has been archived for future dissemination (e.g., on the arXiv or BioRxiv platforms). Sometimes the submitted material is still considered confidential by the authors' employers. Sending a paper to MICCAI for review does not constitute a public disclosure. Therefore, it is required that you strictly follow the following recommendations:
Conflict of Interest: The blind reviewing process will help hide the authorship of papers. If you recognize the work or the author and feel it could present a conflict of interest, decline the review to the Area Chair and inform the Program Chairs. You have a conflict of interest if any of the following is true:
MICCAI 2020 follows a double-blinded reviewing process, according to which anonymity should be preserved for both sides, i.e. reviewers and submitting authors. Anonymity should be kept in mind, during the paper submission, review, and the rebuttal process.
Ensuring anonymity: Papers violating the guidelines for anonymity will be rejected without further consideration. At the same time, reviews that reveal the reviewer's identity are likely to have lower impact in the PC's decision process. Please keep the following in mind during the reviewing process:
ArXiv papers: with the increase in popularity of publishing technical reports and arXiv papers, sometimes the reviewer may know the authors of a paper.
Thank you, in advance, for your efforts and contributions toward yet another successful MICCAI Conference,
MICCAI 2020 Organizing Committee
Daniel Racoceanu, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
Leo Joskowicz, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Purang Abolmaesumi, The University of British Columbia, Canada
Anne Martel, University of Toronto, Canada
Diana Mateus, Ecole Centrale de Nantes/LS2N, France
Danail Stoyanov, University College London, United Kingdom
S. Kevin Zhou, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Maria A. Zuluaga, Eurecom, France
Kitty Wong, Robarts/Western University, Canada