Author instructions

MIDL 2021 submissions follow two tracks: full and short papers. All accepted full papers will be published as a volume in the Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. We will be using as a submission and reviewing platform, with a two-week period for author rebuttal and discussion for full-paper submissions.

Full papers contain methodological developments or well-validated applications of deep learning algorithms in medical imaging. The paper length is strictly limited to 8 pages with as many extra pages as needed for the references, the acknowledgements and appendix section (all in a single pdf). The papers will go through a full, single-blind reviewing process via OpenReview, with a two-week period for author rebuttal and discussion. A selection of full papers will be invited for oral presentation. All accepted full papers will be published as a volume in the Proceedings of Machine Learning Research.

Short papers are strictly limited to 3 pages (including references) and can, for example, focus on novel methodological ideas without extensive validation. We also specifically accept short papers discussing recently published or submitted journal contributions to give authors the opportunity to present their work and obtain feedback from conference attendees. Selection of short papers is based on a light single-blind review process via OpenReview, without a discussion period. All accepted short papers will be presented at the conference.

To submit a paper, authors need to have an updated OpenReview account. Visit after logging in.

OpenReview conference website

After the registration period is over the Submission button will be inactive. To upload your pdf, select your paper and press “Revision”.

Inquiries to the program chairs can be addressed directly to [email protected].

Paper registration step (important)

To be able to upload the PDF of a full or short paper before the submission deadlines, authors have to create a submission on openreview with title, abstract and author information a week in advance (paper registration deadline).

Latex template

To prepare your submission to MIDL 2021 either as a full or short paper, please use the LaTeX style files provided at:

Dual submission policy

Full papers

Submissions that are substantially similar to papers that have been previously published, or accepted for publication, or that are submitted in parallel to other conferences with proceedings or journals, are not allowed.

Short papers

In addition to original work, authors can choose to submit a shortened version of a recently (within the year 2019 or 2020) published, or submitted, journal publication to foster dissemination of high-quality work. Submissions that are substantially similar to versions that have been accepted or submitted in parallel to other conferences with proceedings are not allowed.

In both cases, dual submission of your paper to a non-peer reviewed website like arXiv is allowed. Similarly, submissions that have been presented at non-archival workshops (i.e., venues that do not have publication proceedings or publish only a very short abstract) do not violate the policy.

The policy is enforced during the whole reviewing process period.

Review Process

  1. Submissions can be made either as a full or short paper.
  2. Submissions are uploaded on OpenReview. The official reviews will be private during the review period, and will become publicly visible only after the reviews become available to authors.
  3. Public commenting (i.e. anybody who is logged in can post comments) becomes possible only after the decisions have been released and reviews are made available to authors. The author of a public comment can decide to post anonymously or not. Login is required before posting any comment.
  4. Submissions to MIDL will be single-blind (Reviewers can see author names when conducting reviews, but authors cannot see reviewer names), but reviewers have the option to sign the review.
  5. Short-paper submissions will undergo a lighter review, and do not have a period for rebuttal and author discussion.
  6. Reviews of full papers will be made available to authors on March 10th.
  7. The period from March 10th to March 22nd will be for open discussion between the authors and reviewers (full paper only), with the Area Chair guiding the discussion towards essential points.
  8. To submit your rebuttal and/or answer specific comments by the reviewers, please use the “official comments” button in OpenReview. During the rebuttal/discussion period, authors can update the pdf of a paper to highlight changes.
  9. On March 31st, authors will be notified about the acceptance or rejection of their paper (full paper). For short papers the decisions will be made available on May 12th.
  10. Once the process is complete and a final decision is reached, the authors can choose to delete rejected submissions from the OpenReview hosting site.
  11. Papers that are not accepted will be considered non-archival, and may be submitted elsewhere at the discretion of the authors. We strongly encourage taking into account the reviewers comments before resubmitting. During submission, the authors will have the option to indicate whether to have their submissions, the reviews, and the comments to be deleted from the OpenReview site, in case their submission is rejected.

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 preferably ideas regarding related and future work.
  3. Comments regarding lack of novelty need to be substantiated, e.g. by providing reference(s) to previous work.
  4. Reviewers can be anonymous but they are eligible for the outstanding reviewer award only if they sign the review.
  5. Reviewers should engage in discussion with the authors during the rebuttal period.