Author Information and Rebuttal Guide

This document contains a number of points that we hope will be useful for authors for preparing their submissions to MICCAI 2019, and should be read in conjunction with the MICCAI Review Process document:


call for papers


MICCAI welcomes manuscripts that represent methodological innovations, from the level of fundamental mathematical formulation to the level of innovative integration in the areas of interest of the Society. In addition, we encourage submission of performance evaluation on large datasets, or first in human feasibility studies that rigorously and reproducibly demonstrate clinical relevance/viability in clinical practice or research settings. Methodological manuscripts should highlight their progress beyond the state-of-the-art, while evaluation/feasibility studies will be assessed by the appropriateness of their design, the soundness of their conclusions, and the existence of prior similar studies.

Topics of interest for MICCAI include, but are not limited to:

Medical Image Computing

  • Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence
  • Image Segmentation, Registration and Fusion
  • Image Reconstruction and Image Quality
  • Computational Anatomy and Physiology
  • Microscopy and Histology Image Analysis
  • Computer Aided Diagnosis
  • Population Imaging and Imaging Genetics
  • Applications of Big Data in Imaging
  • Integration of Imaging with Non-Imaging Biomarkers
  • Visualisation in Biomedical Imaging

 Computer-Assisted Interventions

  • Surgical Data Science
  • Interventional Imaging Systems
  • Image-Guided Interventions and Surgery
  • Surgical and Interventional Simulation Systems
  • Interventional Tracking and Navigation
  • Medical Robotics and Haptics
  • Surgical Skill and Work Flow Analysis
  • Surgical Planning and Simulation
  • Surgical Visualization and Mixed, Augmented and Virtual Reality
  • Interventional Software and User Interfaces

We also welcome related topics from medical acquisition or devices, statistical and mathematical methods applied to imaging, computer vision, visualization,  integration of imaging and non-imaging biomarkers, and application of state of the art image computing methods to clinical and biological problems, all bridging over to the more traditional MICCAI topics. We particularly welcome papers that illustrate the application of MIA techniques to the CAI domain.

To promote equality and diversity, the MICCAI organizers particularly welcome submissions from female researchers and other underrepresented groups.



The submission process will comprise two phases:

  • You will register your intention-to-submit by Midnight, Pacific Time, March 18th 2019. This registration will require only the submission of the title, author list, and abstract of the manuscript. You will not be able to submit your full manuscript without registering an intention-to-submit.
  • The full manuscript submission deadline will be Midnight, Pacific Time, March 29th 2019. There will be no extension. Please see important dates on the website for further details on the review schedule.



Papers should be submitted electronically following the guidelines for authors and LaTeX and MS Word templates are available at Lecture Notes in Computer Science, double blind review). Manuscripts should be up to 8-pages and submitted via the Conference Management Toolkit (CMT). At submission time, a pre-filed Copyright Form, which will only be processed in case of acceptance of the manuscript, must be submitted. The papers will be evaluated by three external reviewers and Area Chairs for potential inclusion in the scientific program of MICCAI.



The MICCAI 2019 review process is described in more detail on the MICCAI website. In the following we focus on a number of important elements to assist authors on a smooth submission and review process.

Statement of Novelty/Impact: This statement, of up to 300 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.

Toronto Paper Matching System: By submitting a paper to MICCAI, the authors agree to the review process and understand that papers are processed using the Toronto Paper Matching System (TPMS) to match each manuscript to the best possible chairs and reviewers. Authors are also asked to complete their profile to manage any reviewing conflicts of interest. Any changes of co-authorship during the paper review process and after paper acceptance must be justified in writing to the Program Chairs.

Double-blind Review: MICCAI reviewing is double blind, in that authors do not know the names of the area chair/reviewers of their papers, and area chairs/reviewers do not know the names of the authors. Authors should avoid providing information that may identify them in the acknowledgments (e.g., co-workers and grant IDs) or citations. Avoid providing links to websites that may identify any of the authors. Violation of any of these guidelines may lead to rejection without further review. 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 these concurrent submissions, and (3) include anonymized versions of those papers in the supplementary material.

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. You are strongly discouraged to make arXiv submissions of your MICCAI papers prior to MICCAI paper acceptance decisions. Conversely, reviewers are not allowed to attempt to identify reviewers based on arXiv submissions or other publicly available technical reports. ArXiv papers are not considered prior work since they have not been peer-reviewed. Therefore, citations to these papers are not required and reviewers are asked not to penalize a paper that fails to cite an arXiv submission. If the review process reveals that breaching of anonymity resulted from existence of an arXiv submission, the PC is likely to reject the paper on these grounds.

Dual/Double Submissions: By submitting a manuscript to MICCAI, authors acknowledge that their work has not been previously published or accepted for publication in a similar form in any peer-reviewed venue including journal, conference, workshop, or archival forums. Furthermore, no paper substantially similar in content has been, or will be submitted to another conference or workshop during the review period (April 28, 2019 – May 20, 2019).

The authors also attest that they did not submit substantially similar submissions to MICCAI 2019. 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 four 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 a 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, which are typically not peer reviewed.

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 4 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’s 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 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. Note that a Technical Report (departmental,, etc.) that is published in any form without direct peer-review is NOT considered a publication in this context,  and is therefore permitted, but should NOT be cited. Likewise, mention of the work under review in a presentation is NOT considered a violation.

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. 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.

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.



Note that your submission for review must not have any links to supplementary material, and at review time, only the content of the 8-page paper will be considered.

As part of the final paper submission following acceptance, authors may optionally upload supplementary material, which may include: videos to showcase results/demo of the proposed approach/system; images and other results in addition to those in the paper; related submissions to other conferences and journals, and appendices or technical reports containing extended proofs and mathematical derivations that are not essential to the understanding of the submitted paper. MICCAI encourages 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.

Details for submission of video materials can be found HERE.

Please note that:

  • All supplementary material should be self-contained and zipped into a single file. The following formats are preferred: avi, doc, docx, mp4, pdf, wmv.
  • The link to the supplementary material will only appear in the final submitted version of the paper after acceptance.
  • Do not submit a newer version of the paper as supplementary material. A newer version of the paper or portion thereof, with description of an improved algorithm/approach/system or even one spelling or typo correction, is not allowed.



Your rebuttal is addressed to the Area Chairs only. Reviewers will not see it and will not be able to change their reviews.

The goal of the rebuttal is to inform the Area Chairs of major misunderstandings, in your opinion, in the reviewers’ assessment, or of incorrect statements in the reviews. 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 Chair that you understand the high level messages that were provided in the reviews.

It is useful to summarize or rephrase the criticism before you address it, as long as it is clear 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 else 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.

It is not helpful to promise to expand your paper to address all the questions raised by the reviewers. The process does not allow for substantial changes to a paper, and it is unlikely there will be sufficient room to add to it.

A good rebuttal is polite. Being confrontational does not bring any added value to the paper. You should point out, however, if you feel you have received a review that was not courteous, or made false or unsubstantiated arguments that you can succinctly refute.



MICCAI is committed to reproducible research. In MICCAI 2019, we invite reviewers and 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 code available for open access by other researchers.

MICCAI welcomes manuscripts on highly innovative and ground-breaking methods, systems or technologies for which 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.

MICCAI also welcomes translational manuscripts whose main contribution is to 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 manuscripts should be underpinned by an appropriate evaluation design and protocol representing best practices in image analysis, machine learning, and statistical design.

The following books provide pointers to the state of the art in performance analysis and statistical methods that should cover most of the algorithms and evaluation designs relevant to the MICCAI community.

  1. Altman DG (1991) Practical Statistics for Medical Research, Chapman and Hall/CRC (London UK).
  2. Bland M (2015) Introduction to Medical Statistics (4th Ed), Oxford University Press (Oxford UK).
  3. Japkowicz N, Shah M (2011) Evaluating Learning Algorithms: A Classification Perspective, Cambridge University Press (New York, NY).
  4. Klette R, Stiehl HS, Viergever MA, Vincken, KL (Eds.) (2000) Performance Characterization in Computer Vision (Computational Imaging and Vision Series), Kluwer Academic Publisher (Dordrecht, The Netherlands).
  5. Susan-Young S, Driggers RG, Jacobs EL (2008) Signal Processing and Performance Analysis for Imaging Systems, Artech House (Norwood, MA).

The following article contains a check list that can be used as a self-assessment of your manuscript:

  1. Duchesne S, Jannin P. Proposing a manuscript peer-review checklist. Neuroimage. 2008 Feb 15;39(4):1783-7.

Finally, we include a recent article on the benefits of a double blind peer review process:

  1. Andrew Tomkins, Min Zhang, and William D. Heavlin (2017). Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. PNAS 14(48): 12708–12713.