Formatting instructions

In order to submit to EuroVis 2017, authors prepare their submissions as a PDF file using the EuroVis 2017 LaTeX2e Style (including a document class, a style file, a sample source file, and a corresponding PDF output file).

Please make sure that an image embedded in your paper does not contain transparent pixels (i.e., an alpha channel of a transparent color), because this will lead to problems when the resulting PDF is displayed or printed.

Submissions can also include supplementary material such as videos or executable programs, up to a limit of 50MB for the entire submission, including the PDF file. We encourage the use of digital videos to support paper submissions, particularly if part of, or all of the work covers interactive techniques. Please use only the most common video codecs to maximize the chances that the reviewers can see it.

Author Guidelines

EuroVis 2017 full paper submissions will undergo a two-stage review process. The review process is double-blind meaning that submissions must not reveal the identity of the authors (see below). All full papers accepted to EuroVis 2017 appear in a special issue of Computer Graphics Forum, containing the conference proceedings, and will appear at the same time in the Eurographics digital library.

Note that for each full paper the submission of an abstract is mandatory by the abstract deadline, with completed papers due on by the full paper deadline. View the Important Dates page for details.

All submissions must be original works that have not been published previously in any conference proceedings, magazine, journal, or edited book. Concurrent submissions are strictly forbidden. If it is determined that a manuscript is simultaneously under the consideration by another publication venue, the manuscript will be rejected.

Full papers will undergo a revision and review cycle after initial notification of review results in order to ensure they are acceptable for publication and presentation in the journal. At least one author of an accepted paper must attend the conference to present the work, and authors will also be required to present a brief (less than one-minute) summary of their talk at the opening papers preview session (also called papers fast-forward).
We expect that the submissions will clearly discuss the novel and significant contributions as well as place them in the context of prior art in the field. Authors should highlight how their contributions differ from previous work and advance the state of the art in visualization. Among the venues for important prior art are journals such as Computer Graphics Forum and IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics as well as conferences like EuroVis, Vis, InfoVis, VAST, and PacificVis.

EuroVis 2017 uses a double-blind review process for the first review cycle. Author identities will be hidden from the external reviewers. Authors should therefore not include their name or institution on the cover page of the initial submission, and should make an effort to ensure that there is no self-revealing information in the text. However, you will still need to provide a complete list of authors when submitting your abstract so that members of the program committee can avoid conflicts of interest during reviewer assignment. All authors must be specified in the submission system (but not in the paper) at the time of the submission. Adding additional authors after the acceptance of a paper is not acceptable.

Authors should cite all relevant previous work and clearly explain the differences between it and their paper, including their own previous work. Authors should do this in a way that does not reveal which references are part of their own work. For example, do not write "In our previous work on foobar [13] ... " and then have "[13] Removed for blind review" for the citation. Instead, discuss the work in the third person: "We build on the previous work of Smith et al. [13] ... " and include the full reference details. If it is impossible to do so, for instance because the work is submitted or in press but not yet publicly available, then include an anonymized version of the relevant document(s) with your submission as supplemental material. Authors do not include an acknowledgments section in the intitial submission, nor should they post their submitted manuscript on the web before the notification date of the first review cycle.

Our conference will adhere to the following ethics guidelines for reviewers, which can be found here: Reviewer Guidelines

Formatting instructions

The sketch as well as the full STAR should be submitted as a PDF file using the STARSketch, adapted from the version for full papers, but that explicitly describes the information required for this part of the submission (the archive includes a document class, a style file, a sample source file, and a corresponding PDF output file). Note, however, that the length and content of STARS is different from that of full papers. Submissions can also include supplementary material (in case of videos, please use only the most common video codecs to maximize the chances that the reviewers can play these).

Given recent changes on the EUROGRAPHICS policy on STARs length, we adapt accordingly the requirements for EuroVis 2017. We do not impose strict maximum lengths for submitted STARs. However, it is unusual for STARs to exceed 20 pages in CGF latex style including all images but excluding references. STARs should only be as long as their content would justify. Reviewers might rate a submission lower if it is perceived as being unnecessarily long. Authors are encouraged to use supplementary documents to provide extra contents.

For the full version submission of the STAR, use these files here: LaTeX2e Style, which are the same templates than the ones for the full papers.

Contributions must be written in English.

Author Guidelines

A state-of-the-art report submitted to EuroVis 2017 must be original, unpublished work. Any work that has previously been published or simultaneously been submitted in a substantially similar form to any other conference or journal will be rejected.
At EuroVis 2017, the authors of a STAR will be invited to present the report at a level that also allows non-experts in the particular domain to follow their presentation. We plan to schedule each STAR as a 40-100 minute presentation as in Eurographics conferences (subject to the schedule management of the EuroVis 2017 programme, but ensuring that STAR presentations will be given a longer time slot than those of full papers).
Contributions must be presented in English.


Ethics Guidelines For Reviewers


Reviewer guidelines

Reviews have a direct and important impact on the quality of a conference. They also help the community as a whole to improve the quality of its research. The aim of this guide is to ensure that the review process is fair and leads to the best possible selection of papers. All reviewers should make sure that they follow the basic principles outlined in this text.

Be Timely

The EuroVis reviewing process has a very tight schedule, and an important part of making the commitment to review is that you have agreed to carry out the work before the stated deadlines. All reviewers need to finish reviews on time, and program committee members need to bid and declare conflicts on time.

Protect Ideas

As a reviewer for EuroVis, you have the responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the ideas represented in the papers you review. Submissions are by their very nature not published documents. The work is considered new or proprietary by the authors; otherwise they would not have submitted it. Of course, their intent is to ultimately publish to the world, but most of the submitted papers will not appear in the proceedings of the conference. Thus, it is likely that the paper you have in your hands will be refined further and submitted to some other journal or conference, or even to the same conference next year. Sometimes the work is still considered confidential by the author's employers. These organizations do not consider sending a paper for review to constitute a public disclosure. Protection of the ideas in the papers you receive means:

  • Do not show the paper to anyone else, including colleagues or students, unless you have asked them to write a review, or to help with your review.
  • Do not show movies or other supplemental material to non-reviewers.
  • Do not use ideas from papers you review to develop new ones.

After the review process, destroy all copies of papers and supplemental material that are not returned to the senior reviewer and erase any implementations you have written to evaluate the ideas in the papers, as well as any results of those implementations.

Avoid Conflicts of Interest

As a reviewer of a EuroVis paper, you have a certain power over the reviewing process. It is important for you to avoid any conflict of interest. Even though you would, of course, act impartially on any paper, there should be absolutely no question about the impartiality of review. Thus, if you are assigned a paper where your review would create a possible conflict of interest, you should return the paper and not submit a review. Conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) situations in which:

  • You are a co-author of the work.
  • You have a strong affiliation with the same institution as one of the authors. This includes (but is not limited to) your current employment as a professor, adjunct professor, visiting professor, or similar position, in the role of a consulting or advisory arrangement, previous employment with the institution within the last 12 months, being considered for employment at the institution, any role as an officer, governing board membership, or relevant committee, or the current enrollment as a student.
  • You have been directly involved in the work and will be receiving credit in some way. If you're a member of the author's thesis committee, and the paper is about his or her thesis work, then you are involved.
  • You suspect that others might see a conflict of interest in your involvement. For example, even though Microsoft Research in Seattle and Beijing are in some ways more distant than Berkeley and MIT, there is likely to be a perception that they are "both Microsoft" and folks from one should not review papers from the other.
  •  You have collaborated with one of the authors in the past three years (more or less). Collaboration is usually defined as having written a paper, book or grant proposal together, although you should use your judgment.
  • You were the MS/PhD advisor of one of the authors or the MS/PhD advisee of one of the authors. Funding agencies typically consider advisees to represent a lifetime conflict of interest.
  • You are related to one of the co-authors. This includes (but is not limited to) being the spouse, a child, sibling, or parent, as well as any affiliation or relationship of your spouse, of your minor child, of a relative living in your immediate household or of anyone who is legally your partner that you are aware of.
  • Other relationship, such as close personal friendship or significant animosity between you, that you think might tend to affect your judgment or be seen as doing so by a reasonable person familiar with the relationship.
  • The blind reviewing process for some of our conferences will help hide the authorship of many papers, and senior reviewers will try hard to avoid conflicts. But if you recognize the work or the author and feel it could present a conflict of interest, send the paper back to the senior reviewer as soon as possible so he or she can find someone else to review it. If you are in doubt about any conflict, you should discuss it with the editor/paper chairs or the person that assigned the paper to you. You should never contact the authors directly.
  • Be Specific.

The publishing of scholarly work is essential for the academic community specifically and the research community in general. Therefore careers and reputations hinge on publishing in the proceedings, academic tenure decisions are based on the proceedings, and patent infringement cases discuss whether something is considered novel enough to publish in the proceedings. Therefore, it is our duty to do a careful, objective and scholarly review. The emphasis of our reviews should be to help the authors on how to improve their work and therefore to improve the overall quality of the work in our research community. In general, it will not be helpful to anyone - neither the program chair, nor the authors:

  • to do a quick or superficial review, to say that the work is good or bad without giving clear reasons
  • to state that the work has been done before without giving clear citations of previous work
  • to complain about the structure of the paper without making suggestions on how to improve it
  • to dismiss the evaluation method without being specific about the flaws

A casual or flippant review of a paper that the author has seriously submitted is not appropriate and may be rescinded from the reviewing process. In the long run, casual reviewing is a most damaging attack on our conference. There is no dishonor in being too busy to do a good review, or to realize that you have over-committed yourself and cannot review all the papers you agreed to review. But it is a big mistake to take on too much, and then not back out early enough to allow recovery. If you cannot do a decent job, give the paper back and say so. But please, do it early so that the senior reviewer has time to select another reviewer before the deadline.

Be Helpful and Constructive

Have an open mind, or at least reveal your biases. If you are a die-hard algorithm-driven researcher, and you are assigned a user study paper, and the call for papers welcomes both types of papers, don't bash the paper simply for its methodology. It's not fair and it benefits no one. Either assess the paper according to the appropriate user-study standards, or admit that you are not capable of doing so. At most, you might discuss why the algorithmic approach does not provide a suitable answer to the research question. But don't force the author to ask a different question that can be answered using algorithmic methods. Many of us have been frustrated by reviews in which the judge basically told the researcher to do a different study. Work within the author's goals.

Look for the good in a paper

No matter how much you dislike the paper, try to find the good aspects. Perhaps there is a different approach to a problem, a novel application, a promising evaluation methodology, or even a potential twist which could be studied further during the revision of a paper. Be helpful to the authors and point out the potential positive aspects. Let the authors know if you think their work would be better suited for a different conference, journal or venue. Be encouraging.

Be Tactful

Belittling or sarcastic comments may help display one's wit, but they are unnecessary in the reviewing process. The most valuable comments in a review are those that help the authors understand the shortcomings of their work and how they might improve it. If you intensely dislike a paper, give it a low score. That makes a sufficient statement. While we will assure the anonymity of the reviewing process, read over your review and ask yourself whether you would be able to recite your critique in front of the authors? If the answer is 'no' you might want to work on some of the wording of the criticism. A scathing review is usually not only unhelpful to the authors and paper chairs, but it also tends to alienate typically new researchers that would like to enter into our community. Put out a helping hand.

In Summary

Adherence to ethics sometimes requires a more careful analysis of the work as well as a well-thought out response. However, while it appears that we might be losing some time, this will be made up by improving the culture in our community overall, by helping each other to put out better results and overall increasing the quality of our conferences and journals. That is what we are striving for in our visualization community and it is well worth the effort.

  virgind  pc  ieeevgtc eurographics