--- 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 ```text [Current stage] idea / evidence / writing / abstract / submitted / conditional accept / accepted [Next official deadline] [Critical path] [Risk register] [Owner map] person or role> ```