Call for Papers – Round 2 (Late-Breaking Papers)

CBMI opens a second paper submission round for late-breaking results, with a firm deadline on July 21st 23:59 (AoE).

The call is open for regular papers (long and short), all special session contributions, and demonstrations.

In addition to the general submission guidelines, the following guidelines apply:

• Submissions rejected at ACM MM 2025 may be submitted together with the reviews, and a statement on changes made to the paper. These materials will be checked by the TPC Chairs, and may be eligible for a fast-track review process.
• Submissions rejected at CBMI in the first round are only eligible for resubmission if they are substantially revised, and a letter outlining the changes made are provided as supplementary material. Submissions with only small and superficial changes may be desk rejected.

Regular And Short Papers

• Full papers: 6 pages + references
• Short papers: 4 pages + references
• Peer review process: Double-blind
• Conference language: English

Demo Papers

• Length: Up to 4 pages
• Additional content: 1-2 pages should be appended to the paper that illustrate how the demo will be conducted on-site at IEEE CBMI 2025. This additional content will not be published in the conference proceedings, should the submission be accepted
• Video link encouraged: Showing the demo in action
• Peer review process: Single-blind

Submission

The conference proceedings will be published by IEEE. All submitted papers must conform to the IEEE manuscript templates for conference proceedings and the instructions it provides. On the IEEE website you will find both instructions and templates for Microsoft Word and LaTeX, as well as an Overleaf link.

The conftool submission system for IEEE CBMI 2025 is now operational. Please submit your papers by the relevant deadline. Please note the relevant deadlines for your track.

Submit your paper at https://www.conftool.pro/cbmi2025

Let us know if you have any questions regarding the conference. We are happy to help you. Write to us at submissions@cbmi2025.org

Reviewer Guidelines

As part of our commitment to advancing research in content-based multimedia indexing and retrieval, we present these review guidelines to support the integrity, quality, and diversity of our conference contributions. We aim to foster a constructive, inclusive, and rigorous academic dialogue, enabling authors to benefit from the review process, regardless of the outcome. We encourage reviews that are honest, constructive, and reflective of the standards one would expect for their work.

Review Ethics and General Attitude

• Constructive Feedback: Ensure your reviews are constructive and helpful, offering clear guidance to authors on how to improve their work, even if recommending rejection.
• Scope of Research: IEEE CBMI welcomes a wide range of topics in multimedia indexing and analytics, not limited to AI applications. Acknowledge the diversity within our research community.
• Anonymity and Excellence: Although the review process is anonymous, please maintain high standards of professionalism and academic integrity.

Evaluation Criteria

• Major vs. Minor Issues: Trust authors to correct minor errors for the camera-ready version. Major flaws necessitate rejection due to the inability to verify corrections post-review.
• Topical Alignment: Use your judgment to assess if the submission fits within IEEE CBMI’s themes, as outlined in the Call for Papers.
• Enriching Diversity: Encourage submissions across the broad spectrum of multimedia analytics and indexing to enrich our conference’s diversity.
• Content Over Authors: Keep comments focused on the paper, not the authors. Avoid using direct or personal language.
• Contribution and Novelty: Highlight the submission’s contribution and its significance to the multimedia research community, assessing the thoroughness of related work discussion.
• Scientific Rigour: Assess the soundness of the experimental design and whether results support the claims. Encourage the sharing of resources like datasets or code for reproducibility.

Use of References

• State-of-the-Art Coverage: If important related work is missing, please cite specific examples and explain why they are relevant. In quickly advancing fields (e.g., AI-based methods) check that the works cited and used for comparison are sufficiently recent.
• Evidence-Based Critique: Avoid vague criticisms. Provide specific citations and examples to substantiate claims of well-known information or missing references.
• Self-Citation: Only in rare instances should reviewers cite their own work as essential references, ensuring objectivity and relevance. Reference your own work only when absolutely necessary and relevant.

Policy on Preprints (e.g., arXiv)

• Acceptability: Submissions available on preprint platforms (e.g., arXiv) are allowed, as long as** they are not published or peer-reviewed elsewhere.**
• arXiv Citations: Please do not require authors to cite or compare their work to arXiv-only papers. You may mention relevant preprints for informational purposes, but these are not considered missing related work.