This document contains a number of points that we hope will be useful for authors for preparing their submissions to MICCAI 2023, and should be read in conjunction with the MICCAI review process document.
MICCAI welcomes both methodological and application studies.
Methodological studies should represent highly innovative and ground-breaking methods, technologies, or systems, in the areas of interest to the Society. These manuscripts need to demonstrate clear innovations and contributions over the state of the art methodologies. Their evaluation and performance assessment is potentially limited to proof of concepts or small-size validation studies. Authors and reviewers are encouraged to consider, argue, and justify whether a particular paper falls in this category.
Application studies should demonstrate the (relative) impact or clinical value of one or more existing techniques, or to adapt/adopt state-of-the-art methods to a new problem or context. These include performance evaluations on large datasets or in-human feasibility studies that rigorously and reproducibly demonstrate clinical relevance/viability in clinical practice or research settings. These studies will be assessed by the appropriateness of evaluation design, the soundness of their conclusions, and the existence of prior similar studies.
Topics of interest for MICCAI include, but are not limited to:
*New in 2023* Clinical Translation session - This edition of the conference will be emphasizing the move of MIC and CAI research from theory to practice by featuring a clinical translation session reflecting the real-world impact of the field in clinical workflows and clinical evaluations. There will be an opportunity to showcase papers in a dedicated session on clinical translation. The philosophy of this dedicated session is to keep a high standard for methodology development while enabling a strong focus on the clinical application, and providing insights into clinical challenges that need to be introduced to the MICCAI community. Please select "Clinical Translation” category on your paper submission form.
To promote equality and diversity, the MICCAI organizers encourage submissions from female researchers and other underrepresented groups.
The submission process will comprise two phases:
Please check the conference timeline on the website for further details on the review schedule.
You should submit using the Conference Management Toolkit (CMT) website. For both phases of the submission process, please see the CMT instructions for authors page for detailed instructions on how to register your intention-to-submit and how to navigate the CMT submission site. The paper submission system will open on 10th January 2023.
Listed below are several important requirements for preparing and submitting a manuscript to MICCAI 2023. Failure to abide by the following requirements when preparing your manuscripts may result in desk rejection of the manuscript:
For more information on how to avoid format, anonymity, plagiarism and other violations when preparing for your manuscripts, you are encouraged to read Submitting to MICCAI: Avoiding Desk Reject by the MICCAI submission platform manager.
MICCAI submissions will be evaluated by on average three external reviewers and 1-3 Area Chairs for potential inclusion in the scientific program of MICCAI. Details of the MICCAI 2023 review process can be found on the MICCAI website. Below is a number of important elements to assist authors with a smooth submission and review process.
Primary and Secondary Areas: Each paper must be submitted with Primary and Secondary areas selected from the CMT system. Authors also must identify to which stream the paper belongs, i.e., either MIC, CAI, or MICCAI. These areas, the stream, and the paper itself, will be used to generate suggested reviewers and Area Chair assignments using the automated TPMS paper matching system embedded in the CMT system (see Stages 5 and 6 in MICCAI Review Process).
Statement of Novelty/Impact: This statement, of up to 500 characters in length, should provide the main argument for the inclusion of the paper in the conference. It should clarify whether the main significance of the contribution is in the novelty of the proposed methodology or the scientific/clinical impact of the conclusions or results. Note that this statement will be visible to reviewers and area chairs and should not identify the authors or their institutions.
iThenticate: By submitting a paper to MICCAI, the authors understand that papers are processed by iThenticate to ensure the originality of written work before publication.
Toronto Paper Matching system: By submitting a paper to MICCAI, the authors agree to the review process and understand that papers are processed by the Toronto Paper Matching System to match each manuscript to the best possible Area Chairs and reviewers.
Double-blind Review: To respect the double-blind review process of MICCAI, authors should not provide information that may identify them in the acknowledgments (e.g., co-workers and grant IDs), citations, or links to websites that may identify any of the authors. If you need to cite a different paper of yours that is being submitted concurrently to MICCAI, you should (1) cite these papers (preserving anonymity), (2) argue in the body of your paper why your MICCAI paper is non-trivially different from those concurrent submissions, and (3) include anonymized versions of those papers in the supplementary material.
Publication of reviews: By submitting a paper to MICCAI, the authors agree to the review process and understand that, if their paper is accepted for publication, the reviews of their paper will be published as well, including potentially negative comments.
arXiv/BioRxiv: We realize that with the increase in popularity of publishing technical reports and arXiv papers, sometimes the authors of a paper may be known to the reviewer. Reviewers are strongly discouraged to search arXiv for submissions they are responsible to review. Even if they come across this information accidentally, they are discouraged to use the information in formulating their review.
arXiv papers are not considered prior work since they have not been peer-reviewed. Therefore, citations to those papers are not required and reviewers are asked to not penalize a paper that fails to cite an arXiv submission.
Dual/Double Submissions: All MICCAI 2023 submissions must be original and cannot already be published or considered for publication elsewhere (with the explicit exception of arXiv.org as a form of prepublication of MICCAI contributions)
By submitting a manuscript to MICCAI, authors acknowledge that their work has not been previously published, has not been accepted for publication, and is not under review for publication in substantially similar form in any peer-reviewed venue including journal, conference, and workshop. Furthermore, no paper substantially similar in content has been or will be submitted to any other conference or workshop during the review period (March 9, 2023 - June 23, 2023).
The authors also attest that they did not submit substantially similar submissions to MICCAI 2023. Violation of any of these conditions will lead to rejection. The goals of the dual submission policy are (i) to have exciting new work be published for the first time at MICCAI, and (ii) to avoid duplicating the effort of reviewers.
Our policy is based upon the following particular definition of "publication”, which for the purposes of the dual submission policy, is deemed to be a written work longer than three pages that was accepted for publication following peer review. In particular, this definition of publication does not depend upon whether such an accepted written work appears in formal proceedings or whether the organizers declare that such work "counts as a publication”. Note that such a definition does not consider university technical reports or arXiv pre-prints, which are typically not peer reviewed. Likewise, mention of the work under review in an oral presentation is NOT considered a prior publication.
This definition of a publication does however include peer-reviewed workshop papers, even if they do not appear in the workshop proceedings, if their length is more than 3 pages including citations. Given this definition, any submission to MICCAI should not have substantial overlap with prior publications or other concurrent submissions. As a rule of thumb, the MICCAI submission should contain less than 20 percent of material from previous publications. An extended version of a paper submitted to MICCAI (with sufficiently new material) can be submitted to a journal any time after the MICCAI submission deadline (even before a final decision on the paper is sent to the authors). An author submitting an extended version of a MICCAI paper to a journal must ensure that the paper (a) satisfies all submission requirements, including those regarding possible overlap with conference publications, of the intended journal, and (b) does not violate any copyright with Springer. Authors may also wish to notify the MICCAI Program Chairs of their journal submission.
Plagiarism: We will be actively checking for plagiarism. Plagiarism is a serious offence that consists of using wordings or results of someone else's publication without giving credit or providing appropriate referencing. Self-plagiarism, e.g. reuse of figures and sections of text from the authors' own previous publications, is also not permitted. Reviewers and Area Chairs can recognize such acts of plagiarism, and are asked to refer these to the MICCAI Organizing Committee who will investigate and in severe cases refer these cases to the MICCAI Society to determine further action.
Conflicts of interest: Conflicts of interest are inevitable in a community as networked as ours. To handle such conflicts, it is critical for the authors to provide a complete list of co-authors and an accurate list of domain conflicts at the time of submission. The author list cannot be modified after the submission. In rare occasions when there may be justifiable reasons to do this (e.g., additional experiments requested that require additional clinical collaborators), any change in the author list must be justified in writing to the Program Chairs and be approved. In any circumstances it is unacceptable to include anyone as co-author who has been directly or indirectly involved with the manuscript at any stage of the decision process either as a reviewer, Area Chair or as part of the organizing committee; this includes any direct follow-on publications (e.g., MICCAI special journal issues).
Publication: All accepted papers will be made available by Springer's Lecture Notes in Computer Science no earlier than two weeks prior to the conference. Authors wishing to submit a patent should understand that the paper's official public disclosure is two weeks before the conference or whenever the authors make it publicly available, whichever comes first. The conference considers papers confidential until publication two weeks prior to the conference, but notes that multiple organizations will have access during the review and production processes, so those seeking patents should discuss filing dates with their IP advisors. The conference assumes no liability for early disclosures.
MICCAI papers are subject to the standard LCNS Copyright Agreement. Papers submitted to MICCAI must not be discussed with the media until they have been officially accepted for publication. Violations of the embargo will result in the paper being removed from the conference and proceedings.
Attendance responsibilities: The authors agree that if the paper is accepted, at least one of the authors will register for the conference and present the paper there. At the time of paper acceptance, we will notify authors with respect to obtaining the necessary invitation letter for visa applications to help expedite this process. First authors can present multiple papers with a single registration only if they are first authors on all papers.
Authors will be able to submit supplementary materials in the form of additional images, tables, and proof of equations at the time of paper submission in the MICCAI submission format. These materials must not exceed two pages and must NOT bear any identification markers. Authors should not submit text materials beyond figure and table captions, definition of variables in equations, or detailed proof of a theorem. Captions should not exceed 100 words. Additionally, authors may submit supplementary videos without any identification markers. All supplementary material must be self-contained and zipped into a single file. Only the following formats are allowed: avi, doc, docx, mp4, pdf, wmv. We encourage authors to submit videos using an MP4 codec such as DivX contained in an AVI. Also, please submit a README text file with each video specifying the exact codec used and a URL where the codec can be downloaded.
While the reviewers will have access to such supplementary material, they are under no obligation to review it, and the paper itself must contain all necessary information and illustrations by itself.
If the paper is accepted, at the time of camera-ready version submission, authors may revise the supplementary material with format according to the guidelines above without the identification restrictions.
The goal of the rebuttal/response process is
An effective rebuttal focuses only on major critiques. It is not helpful to try to address every minor point in the reviews. By prioritizing and focusing on the major concerns, and by grouping multiple reviewer comments that generally pertain to the same issue into a few major categories, you are demonstrating to the Area Chairs that you understand the high-level messages that were provided in the reviews.
Please summarize or rephrase the criticism before you address it, and clarify to which comment(s) you are responding. While the room for rebuttal is limited, if properly utilized by condensing the response down to the essentials, this is an effective way to let the Area Chairs know that you understood the reviewer's concerns and have valid answers to the questions raised in the reviews, or to establish that certain reviewer comments were false or unsubstantiated.
An effective rebuttal addresses reviewers' criticisms by explaining where in the paper you had provided the requisite information, perhaps further clarifying it.
Do not provide or promise new / additional experimental results, as the final decision is to be made based on the submitted manuscript. In all likelihood, there will not be sufficient room to add additional material to the paper. If accepted, authors are not allowed to make substantial changes to the submitted paper. The fundamental content of the paper, including experiments, data, analysis. should not be changed.
A good rebuttal is polite; being confrontational does not bring any added value to the paper. However, if you feel you have received a review that was not courteous, or made false or unsubstantiated arguments that you can succinctly refute, you should point this out.
MICCAI is committed to reproducible research. In MICCAI 2023, we strongly encourage authors to improve the reproducibility of their research along three directions: open data, open implementations, and appropriate evaluation design and reporting. Where possible, we invite authors to use open data or to make their data and/or code available for open access by other researchers. Upon submission, authors will be asked to fill out a reproducibility checklist indicating to what extent their submission fulfills these criteria. We encourage reviewers and Area Chairs to take reproducibility of the work into account when assessing a submission.