# Wacv Submission > Use when auditing a WACV submission before an OpenReview round deadline, covering the Round 1 vs Round 2 choice, the Applications vs Algorithms track field, the 8-page-including-figures limit, double-blind anonymity and OpenReview-profile requirements, the anonymized supplement, dual submission, and desk-reject triage. - Skill: `thedixitjain/wacv-submission` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/wacv-submission` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/wacv-submission/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-09 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/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. ```bash # 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 ```text [WACV submission] ready / blocked / at-risk [Round] R1 (rebuttal + R&R net) / R2 (Accept-Reject, no rebuttal) — chosen: [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: [Fix queue] ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `WACV-Skills/skills/wacv-submission/SKILL.md`