Review guidelines

We are committed to openness and transparency. We perform an open review process, have open access for all papers presented at MIDL, are transparent with regard to sponsorship packages and involvement from industry at the conference, provide freely available recordings of all presentations on the MIDL website, and we will urge MIDL contributors to use an open access policy as much as possible for the data and code. Reviews should be conducted with these guiding principles in mind.

  1. Reviewers should always provide positive, constructive reviews and be as open as possible.
  2. The review should include a short summary, a list of pros and cons, and ideas regarding related and future work in case key developments are missing.
  3. Comments regarding lack of novelty need to be substantiated, e.g., by providing reference(s) to previous work.
  4. The reviewers are not required to look at the material in the Appendix/Supplementary Information beyond the 8 pages of the paper.
  5. Reviewers should engage in discussion with the authors during the rebuttal period.

OpenReview platform

  • Paper submission deadline 15 January 2023
  • Reviews 24 January 2023–3 February 2023
  • Rebuttals 7–14 February 2023
  • Final decisions 24 February 2023 2 March 2023

Double-blind review

This year, MIDL 2023 follows a double-blinded reviewing process, i.e., reviewers and authors do not know each other’s identity.

  • Since reviewers will not know who the authors are, it is especially important this year to declare your conflict domains on your Open Review profile to avoid accidental conflict situations.
  • Each submission has been checked by the PC for prominent anonymization problems (author list, acknowledgements, etc.) but more minor issues may have escaped our attention, given the high volume of papers. Thus, please report any potential anonymization violation in your reviews.
  • Reviewers should refrain from attempting to identify authors via online searches, arXiv submissions or other means.
  • If you discover the identity of the authors of a paper, you are responsible for making every effort to treat the paper without considering this information. If you feel unable to complete a fair review, please let your Area Chair as soon as possible so they can make alternative arrangements.

The following are instructions on how to create/update TPMS and OpenReview accounts.

Create or update your profile on TPMS

We will be using Toronto Paper Matching System (TPMS) scores to determine which papers to assign to you, so it is important to have an up-to-date entry that accurately reflects your competency.

Create new TPMS profileLogin to existing TPMS profile

Once logged in, populate your profile by uploading your most recent papers to it. It is best if you have approximately 10 papers that are representative of your present expertise. If you have not yet published 10 papers, you may add other papers that you know in much detail. Do not list papers from fields you are interested in but have not worked on yet!

Uploading papers is easy, but just in case, here is a nice video that details the step-by-step procedure:

Create or update your profile on OpenReview

Create an account at OpenReview if you do not have one yet. In case you find multiple different accounts under your name, you can ask [email protected] to merge them. After you log into OpenReview, you will see two tasks to update your information.

Profile informations

  • Please verify that your most recent email address as well as older ones (for conflict management) are part of the profile. Please make sure that your OpenReview primary (Preferred) email address is the one that is linked to your TPMS account.
  • Put a link to your DBLP profile if it is not yet there.
  • Put a link to your Google Scholar profile if it is not yet there.
  • The Advisors & Other Relations section can also be filled, if you think some conflicts are not covered by the email domains. Those need to be at least visible to the group.