Computer Graphics Forum (CGF): Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) -- draft, yet to be approved

Paper Types, Length and Format

The most up-to-date author guidelines can be found at https://www.eg.org/wp/guidelines/ and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-8659/homepage/ForAuthors.html.

1. What Types of Papers does CGF publish?

CGF curreently considers and publish research papers in three categories:

  • Technical Papers, which present novel advances in the broad areas of computer graphics, including theories, techniques, and applications of graphical modelling and rendering, geometric processing, visualization and visual analytics, computer animation, virtual reality and mixed reality, computer games, high-performance graphics, perception and cognition in graphics and visualization, and so on.
  • STAR Papers, which present State of the Art Reports (STAR) or surveys of the developments in specific topic areas. The STAR papers in CGF and the Eurographics and EuroVis STAR tracks represent the most extensive summarization of the knowledge about various areas of computer graphics. A regularly-updated list of CGF STAR papers can be found here.
  • LAERN Papers, which present the Latest Educational Advances and Research in a Nutshell (LEARN). This type of paper is first introduced in conjunction with Eurographics 2016 Education Track. It is normally coordinated by the co-chairs of the Education Track in a paricular EG Conference, and is written based on a collection of papers accepted by the Education Track. The first LAERN paper, which may be used as a template, is Sousa Santos et al. "Distinctive Approaches to Computer Graphics Education".

In 2019, CGF, in conjunction with the EG2019 Think Tank Programme, will introduct a new type of papers that feature extensive scholarly discussions on important topics in computer graphics and related fields.

2. When I submit my paper to a CGF partnership conference, such as Eurographics, EuroVis, EGSR, SGP, and PG, what is the page limit?

From 2017, all CGF partner conferences adopt the standard CGF guideline on paper length. Although the exact wording may be slightly different for each conference, the essential points are:

  • CGF does not impose strict maximum lengths for papers submitted to Computer Graphics Forum and its partner conferences.
  • For research papers (or technical full papers in conferences), it is recommended that each paper may have up to 10 pages (in CGF latex style) including all figures and tables, but excluding references. There is no limit as to the number of references or the number of pages for references.
  • For survey papers or state-of-the-art (STAR) reports, it is recommended that each paper may have up to 20 pages (in CGF latex style) including all figures and tables, but excluding references. There is no limit as to the number of references or the number of pages for references.
  • Papers 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 content.

3. When I submit my paper to CGF and its partnership conferences, what latex template should I use?

  • For CGF, please always use the CGF latex template that can be found at https://www.eg.org/wp/guidelines/.
  • Each of CGF's partner conferences has its own latex template, which makes special mentions of the conference and the papers co-chairs (as guest editors). Please download such a template from the relevant conference web site.

4. I do not know how to use Latex. Can I use a word processor, such as MS-Word?

Yes. CGF and most of its partner conferences do allow authors to submit their papers (in PDF) that were prepared using MS-Word or other word processors. However, the paper must be formatted according to the standard formatting style defined by the CGF latex template. Most CGF authors will advise you that learning to use latex is easier than trying to matching the CGF formatting style using a word processor.

5. I have prepared my paper in a generic (non-CGF) format. Can I submit my paper in this format?

  • CGF partner conferences do not normally allow such a submission because their review and revision process, which has a quick turnaround, cannot accommodate another review cycle for reviewing the paper in the proper conference-specific latex style.
  • When a paper is submitted to CGF directly, a paper prepared in a non-CGF style can enter the first review cycle. However, such a paper can never be accepted without a major revision as a complete reformatting exercise can only be done in a major revision. For the second review cycle, the paper must be prepared using the standard CGF format.
  • Some authors submit their papers in formats of other publication venues. Reviewers often interpret that these are papers rejected by these venues. It may be useful for authors to provide reviewers with additional information such as reasons of the rejection and improvements made after the rejection.

6. Do I need to submit Latex source files?
    Do I need to submit all images separately?

For the review process, only the PDF manuscript file is required, and it should contain all images that are part of the paper to be reviewed, Authors may submit additional images as supplementary materials, e.g., to provide additional imagery evidence to support the submission, or to provide imagery evidence of a very high resolution or a very large size. However, there is no need to include the Latex source files.

Only for the final submission after the paper is accepted, the authors are required to upload editable source files for the final version of the paper, i.e., all latex source files, or in the case of MS-Word, a MS-Word file for the manuscript together with a file for the references and all image source files.

7. Can I submit my paper anonymously?
    Do I have to submit my paper anonymously?

CGF does not require authors to submit their papers anonymously. However, an author or an author team can choose to submit a paper anonymously, except for a minor revision. When a submission reaches the minor revision stage, the author or author team should make it appear as close as possible to what will be published. An acceptance decision cannot be offered to any submission without correct author name(s) and affiliation(s).

Please also note the followings: (i) the author and author team must complete the submission form to include the names and affiliations for all authors; (ii) for each anonymous submission, the editors-in-chief and the assigned associate editor can see the name(s) and affiliation(s) of the authors; (iii) failures to disclose the name and affiliation of a co-author could potentially lead to the possibility of assigning an associate editor or a reviewer with conflict of interest; and (iv) the author or author team must seek permission to add a co-author when submitting a revision.

Please also note that some CGF-associated conferences in the past required anonymous submissions, and may continue to do so in the future.

Review and Decision

1. How long does a review process take?

On average, each review cycle for an original submission or a submission after a major revision takes about 42 days according to the 2017 statistics.

2. What does exactly happen to my paper during a review process?

After a submission is received by CGF, it usually takes a number of steps before a decision is communicated back to the authors.

  • An editor-in-chief (EiC) first checks the submission to see if the submission is ready to be evaluated by reviewers. Typical problems that occur at this stage include (i) the PDF file cannot be read by the reviewers; (ii) the revision report is missing or mistakenly submitted as a Cover Letter which can only be read by the editors-in-chief and the assigned associate editor; or (iii) the authors have selected an incorrect category (e.g., confusion about original submission, major revision, and invited submission). A typical decision for addressing any of these problems is <unsubmit>, allowing the authors to revise the submission. In the case of an incorrect category, the submission has to be withdrawn first in order to obtain a different submission ID.
  • The EiC then selects an associate editor (AE) on the CGF editorial board based on his/her expertise and current workload.
  • The EiC and the AE check to see if it is technically appropriate to enter the submission into the full review process. Typical problems that occur at this stage include (a) the submission falls out of the scope of CGF; or (b) its technical quality is below the standard of CGF. If such a problem is confirmed, the typical decision is <administrative reject>, which is colloquially referred to as "desk-rejection". Such a decision is made in the interest of both the authors and the potential reviewers. It is better to have a speedily decision than to enter the paper into the formal review cycle that would lead to further delay. In most cases, a decision is made jointly by the EiC and the AE after careful reading and some discussion. In some cases when the submission is obviously unsuitable for CGF, the EiC may make a sole decision.
  • If the submission is not a minor revision, the AE invites several external reviewers. The delay often occurs at this stage as potential reviewers may take time to confirm their availability or unavailability, or may suggest alternative reviewers, to whom new invitations have to be sent.
  • The external reviewers evaluate the submission, completing their review as well as a recommendation selected from options <accept>, <minor revision>, <major revision>, and <reject>. Although the software system reminds the reviewers of the deadline of the reviews, some delays may still occur due to various reasons (e.g., vacations, personal circumstances, etc.).
  • The AE considers the reviews and recommendations by the external reviewers, and makes an informed and balanced judgement in conjunction with his/her own reading of the paper. The AE then makes a decision and writes a summary review.
  • The EiC considers the reviews and recommendations by the AE as well as the external reviewers. In most cases, the EiC concurs the AE's decision. In some cases, the EiC may suggest the AE to consider an alternative decision or to make minor changes to the summary review. In a very rare situation, the EiC may make a final decision different from the AE's decision.
  • If the submission is a minor revision, the AE checks if the authors have completed the revision satisfactorily. In some situations, the AE may selectively invite a specific external reviewer (e.g., who suggested some important revision requirements) to help evaluate the minor revision. The typical decision at this stage is either <accept> or another <minor revision>. In a very rare occasion where the authors refuse to meet the reasonably-specified revision requirements, a <reject> decision is still possible.
  • After a submission is accepted, authors are required to submit a final version and to work with the Wiley production team to deliver a paper to be available in the Wiley CGF Early View Repository. It important that the authors do not make changes to the paper except typo corrections that are absolutely necessary. This is because any technical changes to the paper implies that the paper has to be re-entered into the review process.    

3. What is the difference between a major revision or a minor revision?

  • The formal term for a major revision is <Resubmit with major revisions>, while that for a minor revision is <Probably accept after minor revisions>.
  • The authors can complete a major revision within six months following the notification, while the authors can complete a minor revision within three months.
  • In most cases, authors may have only one opportunity of a major revision, while the AE can make repeated requests for minor revisions though one or two minor revisions are usually enough.
  • A major revision is always evaluated by the previous external reviewers and the AE, while a minor revision is usually evaluated only by the AE though in some cases the AE may selectively invite a specific external reviewer  (e.g., who suggested some important revision requirements) to help evaluate the minor revision.
  • A decision for a major revision typically implies that (a) extra technical work is required, such as quantitative comparison with additional algorithms, additional application case studies, and additional user evaluation, or (b) a significant amount of rewriting or reformatting is necessary, such as a major restructuring of the manuscript, and reformatting the submission using the CGF template. On the other hand, a decision for a minor revision usually applies to the requirements for a small amount of rewriting, additional qualitative discourse, presentation improvement, and typo corrections.

4. Can I resubmit a paper previously rejected by CGF again to CGF?

Assuming that the authors have made serious revision of the paper according to the requirements of the previous reviews, the answer is YES.

5. What is adminstrative rejection?

This is a <reject> decision made by an EiC and an AE (occasionally by an EiC only) before inviting external reviewers. It is thus called <administrative reject>, or colloquially referred to as "desk-rejection". The common reasons for this decision include (a) the submission falls out of the scope of CGF; or (b) its technical quality is below the standard of CGF. Such a decision is made in the interest of both the authors and the potential reviewers. It is better to have a speedily decision than to enter the paper into the formal review cycle that would lead to further delay.

Citations and References

1. How do I cite a CGF paper if it was accepted by its partnership conference, such as Eurographics, EuroVis, EGSR, SGP, and PG?

For all papers that are published in Computer Graphics Forum, one should always cite them with the following basic information:

Essential Information Good Example (formatting according to the required publication style)
<Author names>.
"<Paper title.>"
Computer Graphics Forum, <volume:, <issue>, <pages>, <year>.
Marco Di Bartolomeo and Yifan Hu.
"There is More to Streamgraphs than Movies: Better Aesthetics via Ordering and Lassoing."
Computer Graphics Forum, volume 35, no. 3, pages 341-350, 2016.

One should never cite only the partner conference, as this would create unnecessary burden for readers to locate the publication, denying the main objective of a reference. For example, an inappropriate reference for the above example could be:

Bad Example (without mentioning Computer Graphics Forum)
Marco Di Bartolomeo and Yifan Hu.
"There is More to Streamgraphs than Movies: Better Aesthetics via Ordering and Lassoing."
Proc. EuroVis 2016, pages 341-350, 2016.

2. My paper received an award in the partner conference. How can I mention this?

You may add additional information at the end of a reference, such as:

Good Example (formatting according to the required publication style)
Marco Di Bartolomeo and Yifan Hu.
"There is More to Streamgraphs than Movies: Better Aesthetics via Ordering and Lassoing."
Computer Graphics Forum, volume 35, no. 3, pages 341-350, 2016.
(doi: 10.1111/cgf.12910, EuroVis 2016 best paper award.)

3. How can I reference a paper that is currently in the Wiley EarlyView repository?

All papers in the Wiley EarlyView repository have doi numbers that will not change after their inclusion in specific volumes. Wiley will likely improve the identification of these papers in the near future. At the moment, we recommend that one references such a paper as:

Good Example (formatting according to the required publication style, replacing xxxxx with the correct number)
<Author names>. "<Paper titles>." Computer Graphics Forum, accepted in <year>. (doi: 10.1111/cgf.xxxxx.)

Copyright and Reusing Published Materials

1. What are CGF guidelines on copyright, open access, and reusing published materials?

CGF follows the Wiley Guidelines on Rights and Permissions. In addition, the authors should consult Wiley's Authors' Resources on

  • Learning About Licensing and Copyright, which includes guidelines on Copyright Transfer Agreement (CTA), Exclusive License Agreement(ELA), Fair Use or Fair Dealing, Obtaining Permission to Reproduce Material, Plagiarism and Defamation, Dual Publication, Complaints Procedure, and Retractions.
  • Choose the Right Open Access Option for Your Article, which gives advice on "Gold Open Access" and "Green Open Access" Schemes.
  • STM Permission Guidelines. Wiley is a member of STM, which is the leading global trade association for academic and professional publishers. Please note the particular by Wiley that all requests should be cleared via RightsLink or sent by email to permissions@wiley.com, except under the conditions described by the answer to Question 4.

2. In my CGF paper, I would like to reuse an image from one of my previous publications. Do I need to obtain a copyright permission from the publisher?

In most circumstances, the answer is likely to be YES, as normally you would have signed away the copyright to the publisher of your previous publication. However, if the previous publication is in CGF, please see Question 4 in this section.

3. In my CGF paper, I would like to reuse an image from an existing publication. Is it enough to obtain a permission from the authors of that publication?

In most circumstances, the answer is likely to be NO, as the authors of that publication may have already signed away their copyright to the publisher of that publication. However, if the previous publication is in CGF, please see Question 4 in this section.

4. Since Wiley is a member of STM, can I use images in CGF for free?

As stated in the Wiley Guidelines on Rights and Permissions:

  • AUTHORS - If you wish to reuse your own article (or an amended version of it) in a new publication of which you are the author, editor or co-editor, prior permission is not required (with the usual acknowledgements). However, a formal grant of license can be downloaded free of charge from RightsLink by selecting “Author of this Wiley article” as your requestor type.
  • Individual academic authors who are wishing to reuse up to 3 figures or up to 400 words from this journal (CGF) to republish in a new journal article they are writing should select University/Academic as the requestor type. They will then be able to download a free permission license.
  • Either of the above who are publishing a new journal article or book chapter with an STM Signatory Publisher may also select that requestor type and the STM Signatory publisher’s name from the resulting drop-down list in RightsLink. This list is regularly updated. The requestor is required to complete the republication details, including the publisher name, during the request process. They will then be able to download a free permissions license.

5. How can I obtain a copyright permission for reusing images in some existing publications?

You normally need to obtain a copyright permission for each of such images. The process varies from one publisher to another, and may change from time to time. The following information should only be used as an informal and hearsay advice. You must always consult the relevant publisher for the latest information about copyright rules, fees for reusing images, and the process to obtain the permission. In many situations, discounts are offered to those being the original authors of the image or being members of a professional association.

  • Many publishers use RightsLink to manage the reuse of their copyright materials. For example, you can use RightsLink to request copyright for materials in:
    • Computer Graphics Forum (CGF) by Wiley,
    • Computers & Graphics (C&G) by Elsevier,
    • The Visual Computer by Springer, Information Visualization (Journal) by Sage,
    • Transactions on Graphics by ACM,
    • Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG) and Computer Graphics & Applications (CG&A) by IEEE,
    • many computer graphics and visualization books by Taylor & Francis,
    • and so on.
    As RightsLink is designed to serve many different requirements, the user interface may appear to require many pieces of information. Some publishers may offer free use of their materials under some conditions, and some of such free-use permission may take 1-2 weeks to be granted by the publisher. So please make your requests through RightsLink as early as possible.

Quick Steps for CGF, TOG, TVCG, and CG&A

  • For Computer Graphics Forum (CGF), one can request a reuse permission through the journal web site. One may follow a few simple steps: (i) locate the paper concerned in the Table of Contents of the issue. (ii) select <Request Permissions> below the abstract. (iii) One is directed to a specific RightsLink page. Alternatively, if you have alreaday located the paper's abstract page, use the green [i] button for information to open a pop-up window and select <Request Permissions> there.
  • For many IEEE publications (including TVCG and CG&A), one can request a reuse permission through IEEE Xplore. One may follow a few simple steps: (i) locate the paper concerned. (ii) select <Request Permissions> on the left menu bar (below the abstract). (iii) One is directed to a specific RightsLink page.
  • For ACM publications (including TOG, earlier SIGGRAPH proceedings, and CHI), one can request a reuse permission through ACM DL. One may follow a few simple steps: (i) locate the paper concerned. (ii) select <Request Permissions> on the right menu bar (under Tools and Resources). (iii) One is directed to a specific RightsLink page.
Some publishers may allow authors to reuse their own figures and texts (e.g., IEEE). In such a case, the author may provide such document evidence in a PDF file, and add the relevant information, such as figure index, paper title, and date of the document evidence to the PDF file as annotations. Such document evidence is necessary since the publisher concerned may change their policy in the future.

Cover Letter (only viewable to EiC and AE), Authors' Response, and Supplementary Material

1. What are the differences among Cover Letter, Authors' Response and Supplementary Material?

A Cover Letter can only be seen by the editors-in-chief (EIC) and the associate editor (AE) assigned to the paper concerned. External reviewers cannot read the cover letter. An Authors' Response is only available for the submission of a revised paper after a minor or major revision decision. A piece of Supplementary Material (an additional file) is always available for the submission at any stage and is always available to be viewed by the reviewers.

For submitting any materials that authors wish the reviewers to see, the general advice is to use Supplementary Material. For example, for revision reports and rebuttals, one may use an <additional file for review but not for publication>. It is usually better to submit a revision report as a PDF file though a MS-Word document is also acceptable as a piece of Supplementary Material. The software system for submission and review automatically merges all PDF files in the Supplementary Material folder with the manuscript of the submitted paper to provide the reviewers with a bit extra help.

CGF suggested to ScholarOne to label Cover Letter as a confidential item, but ScholarOne could not accommodate this request. Many authors often used a cover letter to submit a revision report. If this occurs for a major revision, CGF has to ask authors to make appropriate changes to let the reviewers read the revision report. As most minor revisions are only reviewed by the AE assigned, CGF normally accepts the revision report in the form of a cover letter.

2. Do I need to submit all files under the Files section?

Under the Files section, there are different types of files that one may upload. These include:

  • Main Document. This is always required and it should always be submitted as a PDF file.
  • Figure. During the review stage, authors are NOT required to submit all figures included in the paper. These are only required after the paper has been accepted. Some authors submit high-resolution images or additional images for review or online publications. CGF encourages authors to use a slide show (e.g., PDF or PPT) to display such images with additional text or voice annotation.
  • Editable Source Files for Publication. During the review stage, authors are NOT required to submit such files. These are only required after the paper has been accepted.
  • Additional Files for Review but NOT for Publication. These may include revision reports and rebuttal letters.
  • Additional Files NOT for Review but NOT for Publication. It is not common for authors to submit files under this category. Files of this nature may occasionally useful to some authors.
  • Supporting Information for Review and Online Publication Only. These may include appendices, slide show, demonstration videos, data files for public access, software for public access, and so on.

Prizes: CGF Cover Contest and Replicability Stamp

1. What is CGF Cover Contest?

Each year Computer Graphics Forum changes the graphical image which appears on its cover. This is an opportunity for researchers to show the world the most advanced computer graphics technology. There is also a 200 euro Prize for the winner, though the biggest prize is of course that the winning image will appear on the cover of all eight CGF issues in the coming year, including the conference issues for Eurographics, EuroVis, EGSR, SGP and PG. The CGF editorial board serves as the judging panel for the competition, except that members with potential conflicts of interest will not take part in the voting.

2. How can I enter the contest?

The latest call for the CGF Cover Contest is at http://vcg.isti.cnr.it/cgf/. Typically the call will open at the beginning of November each year, and close on 30 November. The process involves the completion of a simple form with the image to be submitted. Each image must have been produced with the aid of computer graphics and the authors or CGF must own the copyright of the image.

3. Can I submit an image that has already been published in a paper? If so, does it matters if it is a EG/CGF publication or not?

If the image is part of a paper that appeared or will appear in Computer Graphics Forum, the authors have already transferred the copyright to CGF and such a submission will be OK. If the paper is not a CGF publication, there will normally be concerns about the copyright. In most cases, researchers who enter the contest make a great effort in designing new scenes that best showcase their advanced techniques.

4. What is the Graphics Replicability Stamp?

The Graphics Replicability Stamp is an initiative organised by an independent group of volunteers who wish to help the computer graphics community by enabling the sharing of code and data as a community resource for non-commercial use. CGF endorses this initiative and encourages its authors to participate if their work is appropriate for data and code sharing. Further information about this initiative can be found at http://www.replicabilitystamp.org/.

5. How can I enter my paper for this award?

When a paper is accepted for publication by CGF, the authors of the paper will be informed about the graphics replicability stamp through the notification letter. Authors will be pointed to the CGF web page for the graphics replicability stamp and a generic application form at https://goo.gl/forms/POpoaVsGZknks3Dy1. The application process is lightweight. The authors, who wish to enter their paper for the award, will give some meta-information about their paper and indicate a link to a public Git repository with the source code and instructions on how to compile and replicate the results. The code should compile on a vanilla installation of one of the major operating systems (Linux, MacOSX, or Windows), have a license that allows non-commercial usage, and depend only on libraries that are free for academic or research purposes. The code quality will not be evaluated, but it should reproduce the data used to generate every resulting figure shown in the paper.

The Award organiser may contact CGF or the partner conference concerned for further details. When the decision is made by the Graphics Replicability Stamp team, the team will inform the authors as well as CGF about the award. CGF will include all awardee papers in the CGF web page for the graphics replicability stamp.

Presenting CGF Papers at Conferences

1. Why should or can a journal paper, such as a CGF paper, be presented in a conference?

When a submission is accepted by CGF, authors are offered an opportunity (subject to some conditions, see the answer to the next question) to present the paper at one of the upcoming EG conferences:

  • Eurographics Conference (usually April, sometimes May),
  • EuroVis Conference (usually June, sometimes May ),
  • Symposium on Rendering (usually June),
  • Symposium on Geometry Processing (usually July, sometimes June)
  • Pacific Graphics (usually October)
  • Symposium on Computer Animation (usually July, sometimes August)
  • High Performance Graphics (usually July).
Presenting a technical paper in a conference or a symposium has many benefits. As many blogs stated, these benefits may include: disseminating one's scientific and technical advancements, sharing one's expertise with others, developing one's presentation skills, getting out one's comfort zone, building up professional connections, and improving one's reputation and that of one's organization. CGF strongly encourages authors to take up such an opportunity.

2. Can any CGF paper be presented in a CGF-associated conference?

All accepted standard submissions to CGF (excluding invited articles from conferences and education track papers) that have not yet been presented at any conference are eligible for presentation. Each of the above six conferences has slots for CGF presentations as part of its technical programme. EG and EuroVis also have STAR programmes for survey papers.

3. Can I choose at which conference to present?

When a submission is accepted by CGF, authors are asked to complete an online form about the potential conference presentation as soon as possible. The form should only take 1-2 minutes to complete. On the form, the authors can specify their preference. Allocation of CGF papers normally takes place before the camera-ready paper deadline of a selected conference. The assignment of CGF papers to a specific conference takes into account (i) the acceptance date, (ii) the date when one completes the form, (iii) one's preference, (iv) the topic of the paper, (v) whether it was a major revison from an EG-associated conference, and (vi) the available slots in a conference. The decision is ultimately that of the editors-in-chief in consultation with the conference organizers concerned.

Major Revision from a Conference to CGF (Fast Track)

1. What does this really mean?

The major partner conferences of CGF (e.g., EG, EuroVis, EGSR, SGP, PG) adopt a two-cycle review process that is compatible with the CGF review process. During the first review cycle of these conferences, some papers may be considered potentially acceptable but will require revision that cannot easily be completed before the second review cycle. The papers co-chairs (or IPC co-chairs) may offer a decision <Major Revision to CGF>, which is commonly referred to as "Fast Track". When the major revision of such a paper is submitted to CGF directly, CGF will treat it in the same way as a CGF submission that has already undergone the first review cycle and has received a major revision recommendation.

Like all CGF submissions at the <Major Revision> stage, the decision options after the second review cycle typically include <Accept>, <Minor Revision>, and <Reject>. CGF typically does not allow a second <Major Revision> process, except in some special circumstances (e.g., some of the original reviewers may have become unavailable and newly-appointed reviewers may have identified new revision requirements). Because of the change from a conference review process to a CGF process, the special circumstances happened slightly more often in the case of a major revision from a conference to CGF.

It is important for the authors to be aware that the so-called "fast track" does not mean a "light-touch" review process. Usually the original set of the reviewers for the conference will be invited to review the major revision submitted to CGF. The associate editor also has the freedom to appoint some new reviewers if he/she feels the necessity for covering some gaps in the collective expertise of the reviewers. There have been some precedents where authors failed to address the revision requirements raised in the first review cycle (i.e., managed by the conference), leading to a <Reject> decision.

2. Where do I submit the revision, and what do I need to submit?

The major revision must be submitted directly to CGF at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cgf. Please follow the instructions at the submission site.

On the first page of the submission system, please select the type corresponding to the conference. The submission system will assign an ID to the paper in the form of <CGF-17-EGSR-187>, where the conference is identified explicitly. Because the CGF submission system usually differs from the system used by a partner conference, we appreciate very much the extra effort by the authors and reviewers. In addition to the revised version of the paper (in PDF), it is important for authors to facilitate the reviewers' access to the necessary information for the second review cycle.

  • Please submit a revision report as an additional file (for review but not for publication) since the <Cover Letter> can only been seen by the editors-in-chief and the associate editor.
  • Please also upload the original submission (to the conference) as a supplemental file since the reviewers usually will not be able to access it at the review system for the conference.
  • It is desirable, but not compulsory, for authors to upload the reviews of the original submission during the first review cycle, because it can save the reviewers' time to locate these reviews.

3. What is the deadline?

The deadline is usually set as a date three months after the notification date of the conference concerned. The papers (IPC) co-chairs of the conference normally adjust the date slightly to make it easy to remember. If the authors have any query about the date and other submission issues, please contact the editors-in-chief of CGF.

4. My paper was rejected by a CGF partner conference. I have now made significant revisions according to the reviews. Can I submit it to CGF?

Of course. CGF indeed encourages authors to take the reviews of a partner conference seriously and make a good effort to improve the paper. When the revised paper is directly submitted to CGF, please select the paper type "Original Article", which should result in an ID in the form of <CGF-17-OA-201>. The authors are encouraged to include a revision report, the version first submitted to the conference, and the conference reviews. Unlike a major revision to CGF, an "original submission" is allowed to undergo a major revision if this is recommended by the reviewers and the associate editor. Some authors may consider this as an advantage.

Extended Conference Papers to CGF

1. What does this really mean, and is it the same as a major revision from conference to CGF?

This is usually a special arrangement between CGF and a conference (which may also be a symposium or a workshop). Such a special arrangement typically allows the conference IPC co-chairs to recommend a small number of "best" papers to be extended and then submitted to CGF. This is different from a major revision from a major partner conference (e.g., EG, EuroVis, EGSR, SGP, and PG) because CGF is not involved in overseeing the review process of such a conference and thus cannot treat it as the first review cycle.

The extended paper is considered as a new submission by CGF. The CGF reviewers will be made aware that some content of such a paper has already been published in a conference, and the requirement for at least 30% new contributions. Like all CGF new submissions, the decision options after the first CGF review cycle typically include <Accept>, <Minor Revision>, <Major Revision>, and <Reject>.

When an extended paper is received by CGF, the associate editor assigned will usually invite some or all of the original reviewers for the conference. The associate editor also has the freedom to appoint some new reviewers if he/she feels the necessity for covering some gaps in the collective expertise of the reviewers.

2. What does "at least 30% new contributions" mean?

The phrase "at least 30% new contribution" is a coarse guideline for both authors and reviewers. It is not uncommon that reviewers may interpret this differently from the authors. Our general observations are:

  • The "new contributions" should feature technical novelty (e.g., studying the technical problems that were not addressed in the original paper), additional rigor (e.g., previously unpublished mathematical proof, new empirical studies to evaluating the technique reported), or significant application case study.
  • The quantity "30%" is not intended to imply the page length of the new materials, though the balance between "new materials" and "old materials" in terms of page length may still influence the reviewers' perception about the paper.
  • Some extended papers, which did not pass the review process successfully, were typically considered by the reviewers as lack of "new technical contributions" in the extended part. For example, some of such unsuccessful extensions have included only extra computational results of applying the same algorithm to different objects resulting in new testing images, tables of results, and discussions on the results.    

3. My original paper is already quite long. Adding 30% would make it longer than the page length recommended by CGF. Will this be OK?

CGF does not impose strict maximum lengths for submitted papers. For a typical CGF submission, it is recommended that research papers be up to 10 pages (in CGF latex style including all images but excluding references), and survey papers be up to 20 pages (excluding references). Papers 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. When a paper is extended, it is expected to be slightly longer. Meanwhile, authors can usually remove some materials (without affecting self-containment) by citing the corresponding conference publication, or moving some materials to an appendix. Nevertheless, it is up to the authors to judge the "goodness" of any of such changes, and up to the reviewers to judge the quality of the whole paper after the extension.

4. Where do I submit the extended paper, and what do I need to submit?

The extended paper must be submitted directly to CGF at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cgf. Please follow the instructions at the submission site.

On the first submission page, such a paper should be submitted with the type "Invited Article". The submission system will assign an ID to the paper in the form of <CGF-17-IA-187>, where the conference is not identified explicitly. Because the CGF submission system usually differs from what the system used by the conference, we appreciate very much the extra effort by the authors and reviewers. In addition to the revised version of the paper (in PDF), it is important for authors to facilitate the reviewers' access to the necessary information for the second review cycle.

  • Please submit a revision report as an additional file (for review but not for publication) since the <Cover Letter> can only been seen by the editors-in-chief and the associate editor.
  • Please also upload the original submission (to the conference) as a supplemental file since the reviewers usually will not be able to access it at the review system for the conference.
  • Please upload the reviews of the original submission during the conference review cycle.

5. What is the deadline?

The deadline is usually set as a date three months after the notification date of the conference concerned. The papers (IPC) co-chairs of the conference normally adjust the date slightly to make it easy to remember. If the authors have any query about the date and other submission issues, please contact the editors-in-chief of CGF.

6. My original paper that received the best paper award is not quite a computer graphics paper. Can I still submit such an extended paper to CGF?

Some conferences that have this special arrangement with CGF cover a broader spectrum than CGF. Inevitably, some non-graphics papers (e.g., computer vision and image processing) may receive a best paper award or honourable mention. We understand fully that some authors may choose not to submit an extension to CGF. If some authors of such papers do decide to submit an extension to CGF, we recommend strongly for the authors to focus the extension on the technical contribution to computer graphics or its sub-fields (such as visualization, virtual reality, computer games, and so on). For example, one may add a significant case study to showcase the application of a image processing technique to computer graphics, or one may make critical use of visualization or visual analytics techniques to assist in model development in computer vision.

7. My paper was not recommended by the conference as one of its "best papers". Can I still submit an extended paper to CGF?
8. My paper was in a conference that does not have a special arrangement with CGF. Can I still submit an extended paper to CGF?

The answer to this question is relatively complicated. For some special arrangements, CGF and the conferences concerned do not have any conflict about copyrighted materials. For example, an Eurographics workshop typically publishes its papers through EG Digital Library, and reusing parts of such a paper in a CGF paper will not cause a conflict in copyright. For some other arrangements, the conference organisers typically have obtained the permission for its best papers to be republished partly, and with appropriate extension, in CGF. In other words, the potential conflict in copyright has been resolved beforehand.

Our general recommendation is for authors to consider such a potential paper as a piece of novel research built on the existing work that has been published in the conference concerned. It is desirable for the authors to focus on the novel contributions in the intended extension, and make use of any part of the already-published work with particular care about copyright. Because such a submission is not an invited best paper, the reviewers typically weigh the originality, rigor, significance of the extended paper by comparing it with previous works including the paper before the extension and the authors' other publications.

Please do not submit such a paper with the type "Invited Article", which would usually cause some delays as CGF would try to contact the conference organisers to obtain the review details. Please use the type "Original Article". The submission system will assign an ID to the paper in the form of <CGF-17-OA-201>.

9. I am organizing a conference. How do I make a special arrangement with CGF for selecting some best papers to be extended for CGF?

Please contact the editors-in-chief of CGF.

The Review Process of a CGF-Associated Conference

1. What is a CGF-associated conference, and how can a conference apply for such a status?

A CGF-associated conference is a conference that follows a CGF-approved review process for the submissions to its main technical programme, and publishes the full papers accepted by such a programme in a special issue of CGF. Currently, the CGF-associated conferences are:

  • The Annual Conference of Eurographics (EG), CGF Issue 2
  • The Annual EG/VGTC Conference on Visualization (EuroVis), CGF Issue 3
  • The Annual Eurographics Symposium on Rendering (EGSR), CGF Issue 4
  • The Annual Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing (SGP), CGF Issue 5
  • The Annual Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications (PG), CGF Issue 7
  • The ACM SIGGRAPH / Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (SCA) , CGF Issue 8 (2018, 2020, 2022)
  • The ACM SIGGRAPH / Eurographics Conference on High Performance Graphics (HPG) , CGF Issue 8 (2019, 2021, 2023)

All aforementioned conferences are either major events organized by Eurographics or reputable conferences in the board field of computer graphics.

The decision for a conference to gain the status of a CGF-associated conference is made by the Eurographics Executive Board. Any enquiry about acquiring the status of a CGF-associated conference is normally handled by the Chair of the Eurographics Publication Board.

2. What is the review process of a CGF-associated Conference?

All CGF-associate conferences follow a CGF-approved review process that must have two review cycles. Both review cycles are managed by the full papers co-chairs who are in charge of the main technical programme of full papers in a conference. In some conferences, they are referred to as program co-chairs or just papers co-chairs when there is only one formal programme for technical papers. In addition, EG and EuroVis have their accepted STAR papers (State-of-The-Art Reports) published in CGF special issues. The STAR programmes have three review cycles, of which the second and third review cycles are considered to be the CGF review process. The guidelines for these two STAR review cycles are the same as those for the first and second review cycles of a main technical programme.

The main technical programme of a CGF-associated conference always has an international program committee (IPC) that consists of established and experienced scientists and researchers who are the experts in the scope covered by the conference. Coordinated by the full papers chairs, the IPC members have the main responsibility of evaluating the submissions to the conference, often assisted by additional reviewers appointed by these IPC members. CGF requires each submission receives a minimum of three reviews by the relevant experts, and recommends the system of appointing two IPC members and two external reviewers per submission, which are widely adopted by the prestigious conferences in the field (including EG and EuroVis).

As CGF is ultimately responsible for the quality of the papers accepted for publication in its special issues and for their distribution of these papers through the Wiley Online Service and Eurographics Digital Library, one of CGF Editors-in-Chief (EiCs) must oversee the management of the review process, and has the responsibility for ensuring the quality of the papers accepted into any CGF special issues. While CGF recognizes that all full papers co-chairs are established experts in the field, CGF is also aware of the facts that (i) some co-chairs may have limited experience in managing a journal-level review process for many submissions and in handling complex issues arising during a review process and (ii) some conferences do not have a continuity arrangement such that every year the full papers co-chairs are all new to the job for managing a CGF-approved review process. Hence, in some cases, the CGF EiC overseeing a conference may pay close attention to the review process. It is also sensible for the full papers co-chairs to seek advice whenever there is a need.

Once the full papers co-chairs are appointed, the first thing is to discuss the review and publication schedule with the CGF EiC overseeing the conference and the EG Publication Administrator, Stefanie Behnke.

In general, usually before 3-5 days before the notification date of the first review cycle, the full papers co-chairs should provide the CGF EiC overseeing the conference with the following information:

  • Overall statistics about the number of submissions, the number of recommendations for acceptance or conditional acceptance, the number of recommendations for major revision to CGF, and the number of rejections.
  • For each submission, a review record consisting of the following information:
    1. paper ID,
    2. the name of the contact author,
    3. the email of the contact author,
    4. the title of the submission,
    5. if any, the name of the co-chair with conflict of interest (CoI)
    6. all scores returned by the reviewers,
    7. the decision by the co-chairs, and
    8. the remarks by the co-chairs (necessary for all borderline or complex decisions).

The recommendation by the primary reviewer is optional. The record should NOT include any information about the names or affiliations of the IPC members or external reviewers involved in the review process.

It is common for a CGF-EiC to query about certain decisions, and request for further explanation on borderline or complex decisions. Although it is rarely for a CGF EiC to overrule a decision by the co-chairs, the CGF EiC does have the right to do so when the EiC considers a decision being highly risky or inconsistent with the quality requirement in general.

After the decisions for all submissions are finalized, the records of all submissions (including rejections) are kept as a formal CGF document for the review process of the special issue concerned. It is important to consider the entire review process for all submissions is a CGF review process, not just the part for the accepted papers.

Following the first review cycle, the CGF EiC overseeing the process will normally let the co-chairs know about the approval process for the second review cycle. While it is common that a CGF EiC requires only a post-notification report for the second review cycle, there have been cases where a CGF EiC requests pre-notification report, especially for submissions with less straightforward decisions in the first review cycle.

Following the notification review, all accepted papers in their final version are submitted by a date agreed by the EG Publication Administrator who will prepare the USB for the conference as well as for distribution of these papers through Wiley online service and EG Digital Library.

3. Can CGF Editors-in-Chief (EiCs) submit their work to a CGF-associated Conference?
    Can the full papers co-chairs of a CGF-associated Conference submit their work to the programme that they are responsible for?
    Can the STAR co-chairs of a CGF-associated Conference submit their work to the programme that they are responsible for?

Editors-in-Chief (EiCs). Due to the difficulty for the current submission and review platform to manage any submission co-authored by an EiC, a CGF EiC is not allowed to make a direct submission of a co-authored paper to CGF. In order to enable CGF EiCs to continue their research activities, EG and Wiley allow CGF EiCs to submit co-author papers to CGF-associated conferences as long as there is an adequate process for maintain the review confidentiality and manage any potential conflict of interest. The following protocols must be followed:

  • For any paper co-authored by a CGF EiC, the decision of the full papers (or STAR) co-chairs is final. The CGF EiC does not have the responsibility for approving or disapproving the decision.
  • For any paper co-authored by a CGF EiC, it cannot be recommended as a major revision to CGF. If such a situation arises, the paper should be rejected.
  • A CGF EiC should not take up the role of a full papers (or STAR) co-chair of a CGF associated conference that he/she will be overseeing.

Full Paper or STAR Co-Chairs. CGF allows a full papers or STAR co-chair to submit co-authored papers to the conference concerned as long as the submission and review platform can maintain the review confidentiality and manage any potential conflict of interest. The following protocols must be followed:

  • A submission co-authored by all co-chairs (i.e., all co-chairs have conflicts of interest) is not allowed.
  • It is common for a reputable conference to limit the number of submissions that a co-chair can co-author. A limit of two or three is the most common restriction. Any number above four is not recommended.

4. How are full papers co-chairs of a CGF-associated Conference appointed?
    How are STAR co-chairs of a CGF-associated Conference appointed?

The full papers co-chairs or STAR co-chairs are appointed by the Steering Committee of the conference concerned. CGF recommends that all CGF-associated conferences should maintain a professional and functional steering committee that is able to facilitate collective decision making processes and to transfer the knowledge of conference management to co-chairs year by year. CGF recommends the stacked continuity arrangement of EuroVis, with which at least one co-chair from year X will continue to serve as a co-chair in year X+1.

5. What review system should a CGF-associated Conference use?

Most of CGF-associated conferences use the Eurographics Submission and Review Management system (SRM), which is part of the service provided by Eurographics. Some conferences use other submission and review systems with an extra cost covered by the conferences concerned.