SIGGRAPH Topic Selection

Choosing SIGGRAPH — and the right cycle and track — before you write is a high-leverage decision,
because SIGGRAPH's bar is a graphics contribution shown through results, and several sibling
venues will serve a differently-shaped contribution better. This skill routes the project. Anchor
venue facts to resources/official-source-map.md.

Is it a graphics contribution?

SIGGRAPH rewards work that advances how images, geometry, motion, or interactive experiences are
created, simulated, rendered, captured, or fabricated — and demonstrates it on results a
graphics audience can see. Apply three tests:

1. The visual/temporal-result test. Can the contribution be shown as an image, mesh, frame

sequence, or interactive demo that a graphics reviewer judges by eye? If the payoff is a table
of accuracy numbers with nothing to show, it is likely a vision or ML paper.

1. The capability-axis test. Does it move a graphics axis — quality, speed, generality,

robustness, controllability? If there is no such axis, the contribution is not yet SIGGRAPH-shaped.

1. The method-vs-application test. Is the advance a reusable technique, or an application of an

existing method to a new dataset? The latter routes to a domain venue or a shorter track.

Route the project

The neural-rendering / generative-3D overlap with CVPR is the most common routing decision: if the
lesson survives swapping the network (a graphics capability), aim SIGGRAPH; if the network is the
contribution and the graphics is a testbed, aim a vision venue.

Choose the cycle

• SIGGRAPH (North America), ~January deadline, summer conference vs **SIGGRAPH Asia, ~May

deadline, December conference.** Same TOG journal outcome, same review model — pick by which
deadline your results can finish to the journal bar, and by conference travel.

• A near-miss at one cycle is naturally revised for the next; do not rush an unfinished paper into

the nearer deadline.

• Direct-to-TOG (rolling, ScholarOne) suits a comprehensive journal paper that does not need a

conference talk; most authors still go through the conference cycle for the presentation and
visibility.

Choose the track

• Dual-track (default): eligible for Journal (TOG) or Conference publication; keeps the

lighter-validation Conference outcome available for riskier/earlier-stage work. The committee
assigns the final track — you cannot appeal it (see siggraph-review-process).

• Journal-only: choose when a Conference-track publication would not serve a mature, complete

result. This forgoes the lighter-validation safety net.

• You do not choose between journal and conference reviewers — there is one review on one scale;

the track is decided at accept time.

Honest self-check before committing

• Do I have a results video and head-to-head comparisons against the strongest prior method, or

can I produce them by the deadline? Without them, SIGGRAPH is a long shot.

• Is the closest prior work at SIGGRAPH, or at Eurographics/EGSR/SGP/SCA/CVPR? Submit where your

reviewers and canon live.

• Is the contribution a reusable technique or a one-off result? The former is SIGGRAPH-shaped.

Output format

[Graphics-shaped?] visual-result / capability-axis / method-vs-application tests: pass/fail
[Venue] SIGGRAPH / SIGGRAPH Asia / TOG-direct / sibling (name it) + why
[Cycle] which deadline the results can credibly finish to
[Track] dual-track / journal-only + rationale
[Readiness] results video + strongest-baseline comparison in hand or schedulable? yes/no
[Route decision] <one line + next skill to invoke>