| name | vis-workflow |
| description | Use when planning an IEEE VIS project timeline from area fit through the abstract and full-paper deadlines, the two-phase review, the conditional-accept second round, the IEEE TVCG camera-ready, the Graphics Replicability Stamp, and presentation, with backward-planning offsets for a visualization paper and honest handling of the annual cycle and the second-round revision window. |
VIS Workflow
Use this as the project-management skill for an IEEE VIS submission. Replace every date with the
current official timetable and work backwards from the abstract deadline — which precedes the
full-paper deadline and locks your author list. VIS publishes in IEEE TVCG, so plan for a likely
conditional-accept second round inside the review cycle, not just an accept/reject.
VIS is a conference whose full papers are journal articles: the conference has no standing
editor-in-chief, and the rotating analogue is the per-edition VIS Executive Committee, Overall Paper
Chairs, and the six Area Paper Chairs (verify the roster on the current organizing page — 待核实
beyond named chairs). The cost model is conference registration; at least one author presents.
Milestones
- Area fit: confirm VIS over a sibling venue and pick the primary area among the six
(
vis-topic-selection).
- Evidence lock: freeze the contribution type, the design rationale, the study/benchmark design,
and the supplemental video plan.
- Abstract: submit real title, abstract, final author list, primary area, and keywords by
the abstract deadline (VIS 2026: 21 March 2026).
- Full paper: upload the PDF (VIS 2026: 31 March 2026); title/abstract/PDF then freeze.
- Supplemental: finish and anonymize the video, code, and data in the one-week window (VIS 2026:
7 April 2026).
- First-round reviews: triage each comment by criterion (novelty, impact, evidence, methodology,
encoding rationale, reproducibility).
- Conditional accept (if issued): execute a revision plus a summary-of-changes, re-read by the
same reviewers against the required changes.
- Decision: archive reviews, response, and every submitted version.
- Acceptance: prepare the TVCG camera-ready, complete Open Practices disclosures, pursue the
Graphics Replicability Stamp on its own track, register, and present.
Backward plan from the paper deadline
| Weeks out (heuristic) | Visualization-paper milestone |
|---|
| 10+ | Contribution type fixed; data/task abstraction and design rationale settled |
| 8 | Technique/system implemented; study or benchmark designed; preregistration filed if used |
| 6 | Study run / benchmark complete; effect sizes and CIs computed; figures drafted |
| 4 | Full draft in the VGTC/TVCG template; supplemental video shot |
| 3 | Internal mock review by a visualization reader |
| 2 | Encoding rationale hardened, related-work delta sharpened, 9-page budget met |
| 1 | Abstract submitted with final authors; anonymity sweep on PDF + video (if double-blind) |
| 0 | Full PDF uploaded; supplemental finished and anonymized in its extra week |
These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current call, never to a
previous cycle's calendar.
The annual-cycle reality
VIS runs a single annual full-paper cycle. Two planning consequences:
- A conditional accept has a hard second-round window. Under-budgeting the revision turns a
winnable R&R into a reject; treat the required changes as a scored deadline, not a formality.
- Missing the annual deadline costs roughly a year at VIS; a sibling venue (EuroVis, PacificVis)
or the TVCG journal track may have a nearer date — factor that into routing rather than idling.
Failure modes by stage
- Evidence still moving at week 4 forces last-minute studies nobody has audited — the classic
methodology reject in the making.
- Leaving the video to the final week wastes VIS's extra supplemental week and ships an
unpolished or identity-leaking video that reviewers judge harshly.
- Skipping the mock review forfeits the one chance to hear "your encoding is not justified" from
a friend instead of a reviewer.
- Treating a conditional accept as an accept and under-budgeting the revision turns it into a
rejection.
- Adding an author after the abstract deadline — not permitted; finalize authorship early.
Coordination notes
- Assign one owner for the supplemental video/code and another for the anonymity sweep; shared
ownership is how both slip.
- Archive the exact submitted PDF, supplemental, and (later) summary-of-changes — the second round
must quote them precisely and, if double-blind, stay anonymous through phase one.
Output format
[Current stage] idea / evidence / writing / abstract / submitted / conditional accept / accepted
[Next official deadline] <date and source, or unknown>
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness>
[Risk register] <page budget / anonymity / evidence / encoding rationale / video / second round>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>
