Check out what’s in store for SIGGRAPH 2020, 19-23 July, 2020 in Washington, D.C.!
Thank you for agreeing to review a paper for SIGGRAPH. Your reviews have a direct and important impact on the quality of the most important conference in computer graphics and interactive techniques. Your reviews also help the community as a whole to improve the quality of its work. To access review materials and the web review forms, please log in to the Submission Portal using your standard submission account.
Look for the good in the paper. Minor flaws can be corrected and shouldn’t be a reason to reject a paper. Each paper that is accepted should, however, be sound and make a substantial contribution to the field. Please familiarize yourself with the information in the Art Papers Call for Submissions.
Please read the Ethics of Review Process section listed below. It is extremely important that we uphold our reputation for treating ideas confidentially and professionally.
By accepting a paper for review, you are guaranteeing to review the following author required submission materials in the approved formats:
And you are agreeing to review the following optional materials if they are included in the submissions:
If you are not willing to make this guarantee, please recuse yourself from reviewing the paper.
Authors were asked to take reasonable efforts to hide their identities, including not listing their names or affiliations and omitting acknowledgements. This information will, of course, be included in the published version.
All submissions and their reviews are online. To access submitted papers and materials, log in to the Submission Portal the same way you would to make a submission to SIGGRAPH 2019, using your existing electronic submission account.
When you have completed your review, you should destroy any paper manuscript that you have printed and/or supporting material (such as images and videos) that you downloaded, as described in the ethics guidelines.
As a reviewer for SIGGRAPH, you have the responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the ideas represented in the papers you review. SIGGRAPH 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 ultimately to publish to the world, but most of the submitted papers will not appear in the SIGGRAPH publications. 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 SIGGRAPH next year. Sometimes the work is still considered confidential by the author’s employers. These organizations do not consider sending a paper to SIGGRAPH for review to constitute a public disclosure. Protection of the ideas in the papers you receive means:
As a reviewer of a SIGGRAPH 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 your 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:
The blind reviewing process 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 they can find someone else to review it.
Paper publishing at SIGGRAPH is very serious indeed: Careers and reputations hinge on publishing, academic tenure decisions are based on them, and patent infringement cases have discussed whether something was considered novel enough to publish.
This does not mean that we cannot have any fun in the paper sessions. But it does mean that we have a responsibility to be serious in the reviewing process. You should make an effort to do a good review. This is obvious. But one of the complaints we have heard about the SIGGRAPH review process is that some reviews can be so sketchy that it looks like the reviewer did not even seem to take the time to read the paper carefully. A casual or flippant review of a paper that the author has seriously submitted is not appropriate. In the long run, casual reviewing is a most damaging attack on the SIGGRAPH 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.
Belittling or sarcastic comments 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.
Adherence to ethics makes the whole reviewing process more complicated and sometimes less efficient. But convenience, efficiency, and expediency are not good reasons to contravene ethics. It is precisely at those times when it would be easier or more efficient to bend the rules that it is most important to do the right thing. Ultimately, spending that energy and time is an investment in the long-term health of the art papers, the conference, and the community.
A tactile feedback device that delivered effective and expressive tactile sensations in free air, without requiring the user to wear a physical device. Combined with interactive graphics and applications, AIREAL enabled users to feel virtual objects, experience free-air textures and receive haptic feedback with free-space gestures.
Birdly was an installation that explored the experience of a bird in flight. Unlike a common flight simulator, users do not control a machine. Instead, they embody a bird, the Red Kite. To evoke this embodiment, the system relied on sensory-motor coupling. Participants controlled the simulator with hands and arms, and a head-mounted display provided a first-person perspective of a bird.
Computer Animation Festival Electronic Theater attendees created a unique, interactive pre-show experience using their devices to make a collective lighting collage.