Technical Papers Submissions

Submitted Technical Papers must adhere to the highest scientific standards. They cannot overlap substantially with any paper previously accepted for publication or under review by any conference or journal during the SIGGRAPH review process.

We are looking for high-quality research papers that introduce new ideas to the field and stimulate future trends. In addition to the core topics of modeling, animation, rendering, imaging, and human-computer interaction, we encourage submissions from areas related to computer graphics, including computer games, scientific visualization, information visualization, computer-aided design, computer vision, audio, robotics, and fabrication. This list is not exhaustive. As always, excellence of the ideas is the predominant acceptance criterion. A copy of the current review form can be found here.

SIGGRAPH 2016 Technical Papers Chair
John Snyder

Technical Papers Committee

Ethics of Review
Publication Requirements
Reviewer Instructions
Review Form

Conditionally Accepted Technical Papers


Tech Papers Accordion

New for 2016

Procedural Change for Submitted SIGGRAPH Technical Papers: Cite Your Prepublications!

John Snyder
SIGGRAPH 2016 Technical Papers Chair

Let me first reassure everybody that SIGGRAPH’s policy is unchanged about what work can be submitted and how it is affected by previous publications. To summarize and clarify:

  1. Authors may not submit work they have previously published or submitted to any peer-reviewed forum.
  2. Authors must cite and discuss all relevant papers and other publicly available content, whether peer-reviewed or not.  Such material is considered prior work against which the submission’s novelty will be judged.
  3. Exception to rule 2: Authors can publicly disclose their own work in a non-peer-reviewed forum such as a thesis, technical report, arXiv article, press release, web note, etc., and still publish that same work at SIGGRAPH. Such work, hereafter termed a prepublication, is not treated as prior work against their own submission.

Rule 3 conflicts with another SIGGRAPH policy to preserve author anonymity to tertiary reviewers. Past policy meant that tertiary reviewers couldn’t tell whether related content they might discover on the web had been written by the same or different authors from the submission, and so whether it should be considered prepublished or prior work. Tertiaries were thus unable to perform an independent review. Authors were also given confusing instructions about how to disclose prepublished work.

To fix this, authors are now required to cite existing prepublications in their submission. 

The mechanism should not glaringly reveal author identities.  The bibliography entry should be for “Anonymous”, making it clear that the work is by the same authors as the submission. The entry should also be clearly recognizable as a prepublication declaration using a standard tag such as “non-peer-reviewed prepublication by the same authors on the same work” or the like.  

The citation should contain an explicit URL or otherwise ensure that any prepublication reviewers might discover corresponds to a bibliography entry. The presumption then is that any related work reviewers discover posted before the deadline and not so cited is by different authors and should be treated as prior work against the submission.  

Authors do not need to upload anonymized copies of prepublications with their submission, only to declare them in the bibliography.

Citing a prepublication obviously lets reviewers discover who the authors are. Reviewers should not deliberately follow such citations back to the authors, but only use them to determine whether content they have independently discovered as part of their review due diligence was written by the same or different authors from the submission.

To be meticulously clear, a prepublication covers the same, as yet not peer-reviewed work the authors are submitting to SIGGRAPH. Other previously published related work by the same authors should be referenced using ordinary citations (i.e. explicit author names rather than an “Anonymous” tag).  It should be referred to in the third person, not as “our previous work” or similar ways that compromise author anonymity.  In other words, such work should be discussed just like any other prior work, which indeed it is. This is long-standing practice at SIGGRAPH and remains unchanged.

Generally, we would expect the submission’s author list to be a superset of the prepublication’s. What we especially wish to avoid is multiple groups of prepublication authors splitting and trying to publish different versions of the same paper. Only a single group of collaborators can use rule 3 on the same piece of work.

Authors must follow copyright law. In particular, while it is permissible to submit a SIGGRAPH paper after posting an arXiv prepublication, the final version of an accepted SIGGRAPH paper should not be reposted to arXiv. Authors cannot grant or any other publisher rights to distribute work that has been published by ACM.

A Word About Non-Peer-Reviewed Related Work
Recent proliferation of self-published content has surely complicated the researcher’s job in surveying the state of the art in the paper’s “Related Work” section, and leads to worry that some competitor will make a last-minute web post scooping the submission. I’d like to propose some guidelines for judging non-peer-reviewed content that might help with some of these problems.

We should continue to apply the same indispensable criteria we’ve always used to judge prior work relative to a submission. Is it well-written or even comprehensible? Is it reproducible? How thorough are its results? How similar are the main ideas? Etc.

I also believe non-peer-reviewed content should be treated with added skepticism and more careful scrutiny than similar peer-reviewed content. Still, peer-reviewed or not, a paper should stand on its merits. Peer review is not a golden ticket to soundness.

Timeliness is another criterion we should carefully consider. It seems reasonable to consider a non-peer-reviewed article that appears shortly (perhaps 3-6 months) before the submission deadline as concurrent rather than potentially scooping prior work. But I leave the decision up to reviewers to be made case by case. 

Unlike a peer-reviewed archival publication, online content doesn’t always come with a time stamp. When it does, it is not always to be trusted. Here again we must rely on reviewers to make reasonable judgments. For example, technical reports from respected educational institutions across the world likely provide a reliable time stamp. The same is true of articles from widely read magazines or publication forums.

ACM Rights Management Form

If your work is accepted for presentation at SIGGRAPH 2016:

  • You must complete the ACM Rights Management Form. The form will be sent to all submitters whose work is accepted.  
  • Your representative image and text may be used for promotional purposes. Several SIGGRAPH 2016 programs - Art Gallery, Computer Animation Festival, Real-Time Live!, Technical Papers, and all installation programs  - will prepare preview videos for pre-conference promotion of accepted content, which may include a portion of the video you submitted for review. 

How to Submit

Use the Technical Papers submission form. The submission form and abstract are due 22:00 UTC/GMT, 18 January 2016. The final paper is due 22:00 UTC/GMT, 19 January 2016.

General Information

1. Submissions may be rejected without review for a variety of reasons including plagiarism or dual review (papers simultaneously under review for another conference). For more information, please see the Review Process section of the FAQ.

2. The submission form must contain a tentative paper title and the name and contact details of at least the corresponding author by the submission form and abstract deadline (18 January, 22:00 UTC/GMT). Creating a submission form with this information will assign your submission a paper-ID. A paper-ID is required for each submission. You will need to include the paper-ID at the top of the first page of your submitted paper. NO PAPER-IDs WILL BE ISSUED after the submission form deadline (18 January, 22:00 UTC/GMT). See Timeline.

3. The final form of the files (or at least their MD5 checksums) must be uploaded by the Paper Deadline (19 January, 22:00 UTC/GMT). THE PAPER CANNOT BE CHANGED after the paper deadline. See Timeline. 

4. See Publication Requirements for information on preparing documents and supplemental materials (including information on anonymity, paper length, resubmissions, etc.). See the Deadlines section of the FAQ for more details about submission deadlines.

Information for Submission of Papers and Electronic Supplemental Materials

1. As stated above, at least contact details for the corresponding author and a tentative paper title must be available by the submission deadline (18 January, 22:00 UTC/GMT). See Timeline .

2. By the paper deadline (19 January, 22:00 UTC/GMT, see Timeline), you must have uploaded a PDF file of your paper and all supplemental files OR an MD5 checksum of these files. If you upload MD5 checksums, you have until the final file upload deadline (20 January, 22:00 UTC/GMT, see Timeline) to upload the files that match this checksum. Uploads of all files will be disabled at some point on 20 January, depending on the server load, during which time it will only be possible to upload MD5 checksums. Please be prepared to upload checksums during this period. If you want to avoid uploading checksums, submit by the submission form deadline (18 January, 22:00 UTC/GMT). Papers or materials emailed to the Papers Chair or Papers Advisory committee are not considered to have been submitted; you must use the online submission system.

English Review Service

Non-native English speakers may optionally use the English Review Service to help improve the text of submissions. Please note that this process takes time, so plan far ahead.

Physical Submission of Supplemental Materials

We encourage electronic submission of videos and other supplementary materials, since they are easier to distribute to reviewers than physical media. However, if you believe reviewers of your paper need to see physical supplementary materials, you may mail or ship six copies, to arrive by (not be postmarked or sent by) the paper deadline (20 January, 22:00 UTC/GMT, see Timeline) at this address:

John Snyder
SIGGRAPH 2016 Technical Papers Chair
c/o Imran Abbasi
SmithBucklin Corporation
330 North Wabash Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611 USA

All complete submissions received by the deadlines will be acknowledged by email. For this purpose, a submission is complete if a paper-ID has been assigned and a PDF file of the paper and a representative image have been successfully uploaded. Such submissions will be reviewed unless they are withdrawn by the author. For more information about the papers submission and rebuttal process, please refer to the FAQ.

Educator’s Resources Submission option. Those submitting content to a SIGGRAPH conference have the option of donating materials of educational value to ACM SIGGRAPH online resources for the benefit of the education community. Learn more

For more information about uploading files for your submission, please see Uploading Files.


The Technical Papers Committee and a set of external reviewers, both consisting of recognized experts, will review submitted papers. Then, at the meeting, the committee will select those papers to be presented at SIGGRAPH 2016 and published in a special issue of ACM Transactions on Graphics.

The Technical Papers review process will be conducted by (1) the Papers Chair, who was chosen by the SIGGRAPH 2016 Conference Chair and approved by the ACM SIGGRAPH Executive Committee and its Conference Advisory Group; (2) the Technical Papers Advisory Board, consisting of past Technical Papers Chairs and other trusted and experienced advisors, chosen by the SIGGRAPH 2016 Technical Papers Chair; and 3) the Technical Papers Committee, chosen by the Technical Papers Chair with the assistance of the members of the Technical Papers Advisory Board, and consisting of about 50 people whose expertise spans the entire field.

The Review Process

1. On the weekend following the submission deadline, the Technical Papers Chair and several others selected by the Technical Papers Chair will conduct the papers sort. During this meeting, they assign papers to the two senior reviewers, called the primary and secondary reviewers, who are members of the Technical Papers Committee. The Technical Papers Chair does not make assignments or review papers. Rather it is the job of the Chair to facilitate the process. Papers that are inappropriate may be rejected during this assignment process, without being sent to any senior reviewers. Papers will normally be rejected at this stage only if they are clearly off-topic for SIGGRAPH 2016, or if they are discovered to have been published previously or to have been submitted simultaneously to another conference or journal. For more details, see the Prior Publication and Double Submissions sections of the FAQ.

2. The two assigned senior reviewers may, upon conferring with each other and the Technical Papers Chair, recommend a paper to be rejected without additional review. A paper will normally be rejected at this stage only if it falls into one of the categories listed in phase one, but this fact was not detected during the papers sort. It is possible that a paper may also be rejected at this stage if it solves a problem that is known to be already solved; or if it does not cite (and the authors seem unaware of) important prior work on the same problem and doesn't address how it is different; or if it has no evaluation via proof, experiment, or analysis; or if it is solving a problem sufficiently minor that the senior reviewers do not believe that it belongs in the program; or if it addresses a topic that is clearly outside the purview of SIGGRAPH.

3. Each paper is distributed to three or more additional experts, called tertiary reviewers. Two of them are selected by the primary senior reviewer of that paper, and the third is selected by the secondary senior reviewer. The primary, secondary, and tertiary reviewers all write full reviews. A copy of the review form can be found here and reviewer instructions here. Thus, at least five reviews are written for each paper that has not been rejected during phases one and two. The senior reviewers know the identifications of the authors of the papers, but the tertiary reviewers do not. In unusual cases, such as when a tertiary reviewer fails to deliver a review on time, papers may receive only four reviews. However, if a paper receives fewer than four reviews, additional reviewers will be found, possibly from the committee. For more details, see the Review Process section of the FAQ.

4. After all reviews are complete, the review system allows the authors access to the reviews and scores for their papers. Then authors have until 22:00 UTC/GMT, 10 March to enter rebuttals if they feel that the reviewers have made substantive errors, or to answer specific questions posed by the reviewers. The rebuttal is confined to 1,000 words in length, and it must be self-contained. For instance, URLs to additional material are not allowed. The rebuttal period is for addressing factual errors in the reviews, not for getting revised text or new results into the review process. Any such novel material can be ignored by the reviewers. For more details, see the Rebuttal Process section of the FAQ.

5. Between the end of the rebuttal submission and the committee meeting, the senior reviewers will read the author rebuttals, confer intensively about the paper, and prepare a recommendation for the committee meeting. The three tertiary reviewers will see the author rebuttals and will participate in discussion of the paper. Since the three tertiary reviewers do not know the names of the authors, the authors should maintain anonymity in their rebuttals. In addition, the tertiary reviewers don't know each other's identities, so they too must maintain anonymity during the discussion. The preliminary recommendation agreed on at this stage will be either accept, reject, or refer to ACM Transactions on Graphics. If an agreement on the recommendation cannot be reached, a fourth option is to table the paper, for further review and discussion.

6. If a paper is tabled, the senior reviewers will select one or more other members of the papers committee to write extra reviews of the paper and be prepared to discuss it in detail at the meeting. The extra reviews will be written during the week before the committee meeting. If consensus still cannot be reached, it is even possible that extra reviews will be assigned during the meeting itself. Any extra reviews will be returned to the authors after the meeting.

7. The full Technical Papers Committee meets to determine acceptance or rejection of each paper. In cases where a consensus on a paper was not reached during the pre-meeting discussion phase, additional committee members may read the paper, and their evaluations will be taken into account in the decision.

Although the senior reviewers of a paper know the identities of its authors, they normally do not disclose these identities during the meeting. In advance of the paper sort, the papers committee members specify with which paper authors they have conflicts of interest, due to institutional, professional or student/teacher relationships. They leave the room when papers for which they have conflicts are discussed. Papers are judged solely on their merit, as determined by the reviews. Although the acceptance rate of SIGGRAPH papers has remained nearly constant in the range of 15% to 25%, there is no quota for the number of papers that should be accepted by the SIGGRAPH 2016 Technical Papers Committee; this number will arise organically from the actions of the committee.

Possible Outcomes for a Paper

Email notifications of the Technical Papers Committee's decisions will be sent following the committee meeting (see Timeline). The notifications will place each paper in one of the following categories:

1. Conditionally accepted for presentation at SIGGRAPH 2016. Conditionally accepted papers undergo a second reviewing process, in which a referee (a member of the Technical Papers Committee) verifies that the final version of the paper is acceptable (that any required changes have been made, and that other changes made by the authors, perhaps in response to reviewer comments, have not compromised the paper in any way). This second and final stage determines the final acceptance status of all papers. The referees' decisions are final. Papers that do not satisfy the referees in the second stage of reviewing and/or that are not uploaded in final form by the final deadline, together with the original or revised versions of the submitted supplementary material, will be rejected. Accepted papers will appear in the conference proceedings, which will continue to be published as a special issue of ACM Transactions on Graphics. One author of the paper must commit to presenting the paper in person.

2. Conditionally accepted for publication in ACM Transactions on Graphics, pending major revisions. The review summary includes a set of required changes necessary for final acceptance to ACM Transactions on Graphics. At the authors' discretion, a revised paper may be submitted to ACM Transactions on Graphics within four months. The senior reviewers will review the revised paper to verify the required changes. They may also call upon some of the original SIGGRAPH tertiary reviewers for their expertise. Accepted papers will be published in regular issues of ACM Transactions on Graphics and may be presented at a later SIGGRAPH or SIGGRAPH Asia Conference.

3. Conditionally rejected from SIGGRAPH. In this case, the reviewers have found enough merit in the submission that they encourage the authors to consider resubmitting to either ACM Transactions on Graphics or SIGGRAPH, with reviewer continuity. The review summary includes a set of suggested changes. At the authors' discretion, a revised paper may be submitted to ACM Transactions on Graphics. The senior reviewers will review the revised paper. They may also call upon some of the original SIGGRAPH tertiary reviewers for their expertise. The paper may then be accepted or rejected, at the discretion of the reviewers. Accepted papers will be published in regular issues of ACM Transactions on Graphics and may be presented at a later SIGGRAPH or SIGGRAPH Asia Conference.

4. Rejected

Upon Acceptance

Authors of papers conditionally accepted by the committee must prepare an electronic, camera-ready version of their papers in ACM-standard format for the second reviewing process, and then for eventual publication in a special issue of ACM Transactions on Graphics. For detailed instructions for preparation of papers, see ACM SIGGRAPH paper preparation guidelines.

Notification of conditional acceptances and rejections will be sent to authors, along with any extra reviews and perhaps a list of required changes (see Timeline). Members of the Technical Papers Committee, typically your primary and secondary reviewers, will be assigned as referee for the revision cycle.

A few days after notification, any changes to the paper title, list of authors, or 30-word paper summary will be due back to your referee. Changes to the paper title must be approved by your referee. Also, if you wish to substantially change the length of your paper, or if you wish to add any pages to the length of your paper, you must first obtain permission from your referee. Extensions of more than one page are unlikely to be granted.

The deadlines for the revised version and final version of your paper are listed in the Timeline tab above. During the week between these two dates, the reviewers and authors will communicate via the SIS bulletin board process about the adequacy of the changes in the revisions. Sometimes, changes are not initially considered adequate, or introduce new problems, so further revision may be required. If the initial revised version is submitted sooner than the deadline, this will provide even more time for iterated revisions. It is hoped that all provisionally accepted papers will be accepted by the end of this process, but this is not guaranteed. When writing successive revisions, the reviewers' jobs are easier if you use a different color for the added or revised text in each new version. (But please remember to remove these colors in the final version.) It also helps to describe the changes in the bulletin-board post to which you attach the revision.

One author must attend to present your work at SIGGRAPH 2016 in Anaheim.

Session Room Equipment
A complete summary of the resources available for presentation of your paper. Arrangements for equipment outside the standard set-up are the sole responsibility of the paper presenter.

Presenter Recognition
Information on how SIGGRAPH 2016 will support your participation if your work is accepted.

Authorization for Use

Any material that supports a paper's acceptance for publication must be available as part of the final publication. Thus, all material uploaded for review in the "public materials that are considered part of the submission" section of the submission form, including supplementary text, images, and videos, are subject to the ACM copyright policy, and the required permission forms must be completed upon acceptance. If it subsequently becomes apparent that the necessary permissions cannot be given for publication of material that is substantially similar to that submitted for review, acceptance of the paper may be withdrawn. Upon acceptance, authors must deliver final versions of their papers and their supplementary material, which will be made available to subscribers to the ACM Digital Library via the web page associated with their TOG papers..

Please be aware that ACM has recently updated its copyright policy to give authors the options of retaining copyrights on some materials or to pay fees that enable free access. You can read about the new policy here or a more concise summary here. Authors of accepted Technical Papers are required to complete the ACM Copyright Form prior to publication. You must, for every non-publicly available supplementary file originally uploaded in the "public materials" category, upload either copies of the originally submitted material or updated versions of this material to the online submission system's final-versions page (see Timeline).

A Technical Papers Preview Trailer will be prepared from selected parts of the videos accompanying accepted papers. The preview will appear in the Computer Animation Festival at the conference and may also be used to publicize the Technical Papers program inside and outside the conference, for example on the web. If a section of your video is selected, you may be asked to provide a high-quality rendering of that clip. Therefore, if you submit a video accompanying your paper, please keep your raw data available for that purpose.


All deadlines are 22:00 UTC/GMT unless otherwise noted.

18 January
Submission form and abstract deadline
Contact details of the corresponding author and tentative paper title are required.

19 January
Paper deadline
Paper in PDF format and representative image are required. The deadline also applies to any video, code and data, and other supplemental material. Alternatively, MD5 checksums may be submitted for any of the files mentioned for this date.

20 January
Upload deadline
If MD5 checksums were submitted by the Paper deadline (as described above), files can be submitted until this deadline.

7 March
Reviews available

10 March
Rebuttals due

16-19 March
Technical Papers Committee meets

18 March
Decisions announced

14 April
Revisions submitted by authors for final review

21 April
Final versions deadline

10 July
Official publication date

24-28 July
Presentations at conference

Technical Papers FAQ

Should I Submit?

What types of papers should be submitted to SIGGRAPH 2016?
Submissions should be novel, high-quality research papers on topics related to computer graphics and interactive techniques. We encourage submissions in several research areas: rendering, animation, modeling, imaging, human-computer interaction, scientific visualization, information visualization, computer-aided design, computer vision, audio, robotics, computer games, fabrication, and any other related topic. This list is not exhaustive. As always, excellence of the ideas is the predominant acceptance criterion.

How do I decide whether to submit my work as a Technical Paper, a Talk, or a Poster? 
The Technical Papers program is the most competitive of these three. Technical Papers give you a chance to work out your ideas at greater length and describe them in a citable archive. SIGGRAPH Talks and Posters provide an opportunity to disseminate ideas and get feedback from colleagues, but do not represent a citable research paper.

If I have previously presented a Talk or Poster on my topic, can I then submit a full Technical Paper? 
Yes. Authors of a previously presented Talk or Poster can later submit a full Technical Paper on the topic. However, other authors of submitted Technical Papers must consider the Talk or Poster as prior art and cite it as previous work. See Prior Publication for more information on this and related topics.


Please explain the three Technical Papers deadlines.  
Various components of the submission have different completion deadlines. Of course, some contributors may choose the simple option and complete everything prior to the first deadline, but if you wish to wait until the final hours please read on. First, the mandatory Submission Form & Abstract Deadline ensures that submitters provide basic information about their submission before the final rush to complete and upload their papers. Second, the Paper Deadline requires that all of the submission materials (the paper, optional video, and optional supplemental materials) are completed but not necessarily uploaded to the submission system. By the Paper Deadline, submitters may upload their papers but may instead choose to upload MD5 checksums, which can be done much more quickly than uploading large files. Finally, the Upload Deadline allows submitters to leisurely upload their submission materials after the Paper Deadline, provided they match previously uploaded MD5 checksums. For more information about this MD5 option, please see the following question about MD5 checksums. 

What is the deal with MD5 checksums?
If you upload all of your files by the deadline, you can ignore the MD5 checksum. The system will, however, compute and report the MD5 checksum for any file you upload, once the uploaded file has been completely received by the submissions server. You may find this useful if you want to check that your file has been uploaded without corruption. Just compare the MD5 checksum you compute for your file with the checksum computed by the submission system.

We have tested the following MD5 calculators:

If you are uploading in the last few hours before the submission deadline, server response may be slow. To be sure of making the deadline, you may initially upload just the MD5 checksum for your files. If the MD5 checksum is received by the deadline, you will have 24 hours to complete the upload of files that have a matching MD5 checksum, i.e. you will have another day to upload files matching the MD5 checksums previously uploaded.

Can I submit after the deadline? 
No. The deadline is absolute.

But my equipment has failed just before the deadline, and I clearly have no control over such events! 
The deadline is absolute. Equipment failures are common, and SIGGRAPH 2016 cannot adapt its schedule to accommodate them.

But I was unable to upload my submission on time. The system was overloaded, and halfway through uploading my submission the deadline passed.
The deadline is absolute. Submissions that are in progress when the deadline passes, even if it's because our server has slowed down due to high load, will not be accepted. You should allow enough lead time to avoid this kind of problem. Please see How to Submit for explanations of the MD5 checksum process.

Unfortunately, in our rush to meet the deadline, we incorrectly set the parameters for our video, resulting in a significantly lower quality result. I have since corrected the problem. May I substitute new videos for the ones I submitted? The video is identical, except for the gamma correction. 
No. The submission deadline is absolute. All materials must be submitted by the deadline. If your paper is accepted, you will have an opportunity to replace the video.

But I'm using the SIGGRAPH 2016 English Review Service, and they didn't get back to me soon enough. So, it's SIGGRAPH's fault that my paper isn't ready. 
The deadline is absolute. The English Review Service makes no guarantees about turnaround, and it's up to you to make contingency plans. English Review Service Deadlines

I'm not in the US, and Customs often holds up submissions, so I have to send my supplemental materials off two weeks earlier than other researchers would. Can I send it by the deadline instead, and you'll receive it about two weeks late, after Customs has had a chance to process it? 
The deadline is absolute. If your supplemental materials must pass through various hurdles to get here, you must plan in advance how to submit it early enough to ensure arrival on time. If the PDF file is uploaded by the deadline, we will review your paper without any shipped material that arrived late.

I gave my physical submission materials to Federal Express, and I have a receipt to prove that they promised delivery before the deadline, but there was a snowstorm in XYZ, and Federal Express couldn't meet their promise. 
If you can provide the receipt (and we'll ask for it), then we'll accept the materials whenever Federal Express delivers them, but we cannot guarantee that reviewers will receive them in time to influence their reviews. You still must have completed the submission form and uploaded the PDF file before the deadline, though.

Can I email my submission to the papers chair if the online submission system is overloaded? 
No. Papers and submission materials emailed to the papers chair or other conference representative are not considered to have been submitted; you must use the online submission system. Please leave yourself enough time before the deadline to avoid problems.

Double Submissions

I would like to submit my paper to conference X or journal Y as well as to SIGGRAPH 2016. 
You must submit to just SIGGRAPH 2016 and await our response before submitting elsewhere (should your work not be accepted by SIGGRAPH 2016). If you submit your paper to another conference or journal simultaneously, we will reject your paper without review. We'll be in contact with the editors of several graphics journals, and chairs of other graphics-related conferences, swapping information. Several double submissions to SIGGRAPH have been found in recent years.

I would like to submit my paper to conference X. Their submission deadline is after SIGGRAPH 2016's Technical Papers committee meeting, but they require abstracts to be submitted before SIGGRAPH 2016's committee meeting. May I submit the abstract? 
Yes. The prohibition against dual submission kicks in when a full paper substantially equivalent to your SIGGRAPH 2016 paper is submitted elsewhere. For conferences that require extended abstracts or other formats, you should ask the Technical Papers Chair before submitting, to avoid risking your paper being rejected from SIGGRAPH 2016.

But I want my paper to be in SIGGRAPH 2016. I promise that if it's accepted by SIGGRAPH 2016, I'll withdraw it from the other conference or journal. 
Dual submissions are not allowed. Your submission cannot be under review by any other conference or journal during the SIGGRAPH review process, or else it will be rejected.

We've submitted a paper about a pilot study to conference X, and now we'd like to submit a paper about the full-blown user study to SIGGRAPH 2016. How should we go about that to avoid the perception that it is a dual submission? 
Cite the submitted paper in your SIGGRAPH 2016 submission with a note to the reviewers that either it will be accepted by conference X, or you will publish it as a tech report and make it freely available on the web. Send in an anonymous version with your SIGGRAPH 2016 submission. Then when you write the SIGGRAPH 2016 paper, treat the pilot study as already published. Don't repeat text or figures from that paper in the SIGGRAPH 2016 version.

I sent in a paper to workshop X with the understanding that it was for review purposes only, and the workshop would have no published proceedings. Now, four months later, they tell me that they're going to publish the proceedings and include it in the digital library. Unfortunately there is significant overlap between that paper and my submitted SIGGRAPH 2016 paper. How should I handle this? 
We realize that you didn't intend to do anything against the SIGGRAPH 2016 rules, but now that the workshop rules have changed, you should either withdraw the workshop paper from the proceedings or withdraw your SIGGRAPH 2016 submission.

Prior Publication

I have a paper that was previously published in a little-known conference or in another language. Can I submit it to SIGGRAPH 2016? 
Previously published papers in any language may not be submitted, nor may work be submitted to any other conference or journal. A paper is considered previously published if it has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal or meeting proceedings that are visibly, reliably, and permanently available afterward in print or electronically to non-attendees, regardless of the language of that publication.

Can I submit a paper on my work that has previously appeared in my thesis, a tech report, a patent, and/or an abstract of a talk at another conference?
Publications such as theses, tech reports, patents, or abstracts in other conferences do not preclude subsequent publication of a complete paper on the same topic by the same authors. However, such publications by other authors are considered prior art and should be cited as such. Whether this or any other form of prior art "scoops" (precludes publication of) your paper or not is up to the reviewers.

How do I reference an ACM SIGGRAPH Sketch or Talk on the same topic as the paper that I am writing? 
Depending on the year of presentation, the Sketch or Talk might appear in the ACM Digital Library. If it does, you should use the ACM Digital Library as a reference. If it is not archived, you may refer to the oral presentation at the conference or the abstract, if it appeared in one of the conference publications. If you were the author of the Sketch or Talk, then citation is not strictly necessary because publication of a Sketch or Talk does not preclude publication of a full paper. If you were not the author of the Sketch or Talk, then you should cite the Sketch or Talk to respect the author's ideas. If the authors have published a subsequent paper, thesis, or tech report about their work, you should cite that instead of the Sketch or Talk because it will be a more useful pointer for your readers.

A month after submitting our paper, we obtained much better results. Can we withdraw our paper from review and submit it elsewhere (or wait until next year)?
SIGGRAPH submissions can be withdrawn at any time. However, authors should remember that the program chair and the senior reviewers on their paper know who they are, and may have already spent considerable effort reviewing their paper. Withdrawing a paper won't help your reputation with these reviewers. If your paper is provisionally accepted, you may be able to add your new results, subject to approval by the senior reviewers.

Supplemental Material

What supplemental material can be uploaded with my submission? 
Authors are invited, but not required, to include supplemental materials such as related papers, additional images and videos, executables, and data for reproducibility of results, etc. These materials do not form a part of the official submission and will be viewed only at the discretion of the reviewers.

If you have a related paper that is under review or in press elsewhere, you should upload a version of this paper as non-anonymous supplemental submission material.

Because we check with other conferences and journals for duplicate submissions (which are summarily rejected), you may also wish to include a cover letter that outlines the differences between your SIGGRAPH 2016 submission and the related paper. Related papers and cover letters need not be anonymous, as they will be used only by the members of the Technical Papers Committee to determine whether the submitted work is unique. For more information, see Double Submissions.

If your paper is a revision of a paper that was previously submitted to SIGGRAPH, please see the Resubmission section. If your paper is an interactive system and/or presents quantitative results, we recommend that you upload a zip OR tar file with an executable, data, and scripts that can be used to reproduce the results presented in the paper. A README.txt file should be included to describe how to run the executable on the data, and how to interpret the results (please make these descriptions as simple as possible). The instructions can be followed by the reviewers to run your code on the data you provide, and (even better) on other data of the same type to validate the results presented in the paper. Clearly, reviewers will appreciate your claims of generality if they can validate those claims directly.

What is the difference between anonymous and non-anonymous supplemental material? 
There are separate areas in the online submission form for submitting anonymous and non-anonymous supplemental materials. Materials whose authorship cannot be readily ascertained (even with a search of the web) are anonymous (for example, extra images or videos with results for this paper, interactive viewers, etc.), while all others are non-anonymous (for example, materials with names of authors or institutions, previously published papers, previous technical reports, etc.).

Supplemental materials should be anonymized if possible. Anonymous materials can be made available to all reviewers. Examples include additional images, videos, interactive viewers, data and executables, etc. Non-anonymous supplemental materials will be seen only by members of the Technical Papers Committee.


My submission is a revision of a paper that I submitted to an earlier SIGGRAPH conference. Will the reviewers get to see the earlier reviews? 
Only if you authorize them to. When you submit your paper, you can optionally identify it as a resubmission, in which case all reviews (suitably anonymized) and BBS discussions from all previous submissions will be made available to the current reviewers. The identity of the previous reviewers will also be made available to the sorters and the senior reviewers. If you do not choose this option, none of the materials from any previous submission will be known to this year's reviewers. For more details on these options, see Publication Requirements.


Do I have to prepare the paper in the final format? 
Yes, please format your paper according to the SIGGRAPH Technical Papers formatting guidelines. Seeing a paper in final format makes it easier for us to compare it to other papers.

Where can I get LaTex formatting template? 
The template is available here.

Should the pages of my paper be numbered? 
You should number the pages on your submission, but not the final version.

What is the page limit for papers? 
There is no arbitrary maximum (or minimum) length imposed on papers. Clearly, writing plays an important role in assessing the quality of the paper submission. Papers may be perceived as too long if they are repetitive or verbose, or too short if they omit important details or tamper with formatting rules just to save on page count. Have a look at previous proceedings to get a sense of the range of paper lengths, where typical lengths are between 8 and 10 pages, but the variation is large.

Can I provide a video with my paper?
Papers may be accompanied by a video that is five minutes or less in length. In recent years, well over half of the accepted papers were accompanied by some kind of video material.

What file formats are allowed? 
The paper must be submitted in Adobe PDF format, and the representative image should be JPEG. Optional images should be in TIFF, JPG, or PNG formats. Optional videos should be in QuickTime, MPEG, or DivX Version 6 formats. Other supplemental materials can be provided in any format (for example, txt, zip, html). However, there is no guarantee that the referees will view supplemental materials, especially if they are available only in an obscure format.

What types of keywords should I include with my paper? 
Select one primary topic area and one or more secondary topic areas from the list of keywords in the online submission form. Include those keywords under the abstract in your paper, along with any others that you feel are appropriate. The final draft of the paper will also need to include a list of Computing Reviews categories.

Where can I find a list of the Computing Reviews categories? 
See ACM's Computing Classification System to determine the selection of keywords to include with the final draft of your paper.

As a non-native English speaker, I would appreciate help to improve the text in my paper submission. 
Non-native English speakers may optionally use the English Review Service to help improve the text of submissions. Please note that this process takes time, so plan far ahead.

The details in my imagery are very subtle. I am concerned that the reviewers will not print my paper on a suitable printer or view my video with an appropriate codec. 
You still need to submit your paper as a PDF file, but you are welcome to use the physical submission process and send hard copy of the paper (in addition to submitting it electronically), or selected images, or of your video.

Does the video submitted by May have to be final quality? Or will people whose papers are accepted have the opportunity to prepare a more polished video? 
You'll have the opportunity to prepare a more polished video. Of course, the better the submitted video looks, the more likely reviewers will be able to see the strength of your work, so early polishing is a good investment of time and energy.


What should I do to make my submission anonymous? 
Remove any information from the paper, video, and supplemental materials that identifies you or any of the other authors, or any of your institutions or places of work. In particular, replace the authors' names with the paper ID (for example, papers_0000) in your submitted paper. You may upload information that reveals your identity as "non-anonymous supplemental materials". They will be seen only by the senior reviewers for your paper.

How do I include a reference to myself without identifying myself? 
The general rule is to use the third person. For example, if Fred Brooks were to write a paper, he might say in his "related work" section: "Brooks et al. [12] discuss a system in which molecular visualizations are ... Our work builds on some of the ideas presented there, and on the ideas of Smith et al. [14] and the interaction techniques described by Wolford [18]." He would NOT say: "The authors, in prior work [12], discussed a system in which molecular visualization ... " The only case in which anonymous references are appropriate are unpublished manuscripts, in which case he might write: "The authors have also developed closely related techniques for molecular manipulation [15], but that work is outside the scope of this paper." Reference 15 would then read: [15] Anonymous Authors. Molecular manipulations through computer graphics, submitted to CACM.

If there is any danger that reference [15] might be considered a dual submission, then you should submit it as supplemental material with your SIGGRAPH submission, along with a cover letter (also submitted as supplemental material) briefly explaining the differences between it and your SIGGRAPH submission. You do not need to anonymize the cover letter, and normally you do not need to anonymize the supplemental manuscript either. However, if you believe it is important that all reviewers see that manuscript (for example, because it explains background concepts they might need in order to judge your SIGGRAPH submission), then send in an anonymous version with your SIGGRAPH 2016 submission. This will allow it to be sent to tertiary reviewers. Make sure your cover letter clearly identifies which PDF file is your SIGGRAPH 2016 submission. If you can submit these supplementary materials (and any cover letter) electronically, please do so. The submission form provides separate areas for submitting supplementary materials intended to go to all reviewers versus supplementary materials intended to go only to the primary and secondary reviewer. Non-anonymized materials that would identify you as the author, including any cover letter, should go in the second area.

My SIGGRAPH 2016 submission needs to cite a tech report or thesis that might be hard for reviewers to find. What should I do? 
You are welcome to submit that report or thesis as supplemental material. Cite it in the third person in your SIGGRAPH submission, even if you are one of its authors. This avoids the necessity of anonymizing it.

My SIGGRAPH 2016 submission needs to cite one of our own web pages, which can't easily be anonymized. Now what should I do? 
The rules governing prepublication have been clarified (see New for 2016). For other types of web content, if you can reasonably cite the web page in the third person, go ahead.

My SIGGRAPH 2016 submission needs to cite another, concurrent SIGGRAPH submission by our group. Now what should I do? 
Cite it as [16] Anonymous Authors, A grand unified theory of computer graphics, submitted to SIGGRAPH 2016, and submit as non-anonymous supplemental material a letter telling us which paper-id you are referring to.

I know I am supposed to remove my name, company name, etc. from the document, but should I also remove names from the acknowledgements? If the paper is accepted, should I send another copy to you with this additional material? 
You should not include an "acknowledgements" section in the submission. If your paper is accepted, you will submit a revised version that identifies you and your co-authors, your affiliations, and any acknowledgements that are appropriate. Keep in mind the additional space that will be required when stating how many pages the paper will require.

Review Process

Can you give me some example reasons that my paper would get rejected without review?
Submissions will be rejected without review if it is found that:

  • The submission violates the ACM Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism.
  • The submission is a dual submission; that is, if the submission is simultaneously under review for any other conference or publication. For more details see the Prior Publication and Double Submissions sections.
  • The paper is so incomplete or poorly written that review is impossible.
  • The paper focuses on advertising of a company's product(s).
  • The paper is on a topic clearly outside the scope of SIGGRAPH.
  • Electronic files have been submitted that have been designed to have side effects other than presenting the submitted work to reviewers and committee members (for example, a "phone home" script).
  • It appears that the paper contains material for which the submitters have not secured the necessary copyrights.

Why are good papers rejected? 
Check out this article by Jim Kajiya, the Papers Chair for SIGGRAPH 93, for many excellent reasons. Although some of the details are dated, the general wisdom is timeless.

Am I allowed to ask for my paper to not be reviewed by someone from whom I do not expect a fair review? 
No. The reviewer selection process includes no such provisions. Surprisingly often during the committee meeting there is discussion such as: "This paper got scores of 5, 4, 5, 4.5, and 2, but let me explain the score of 2. The reviewer picked at small details, was angry that his own work had not been properly cited (although when I looked at it, it appeared to have been treated more than fairly), and then wrote a very cursory review of the main contribution of the paper. It seems as if there's something going on here that doesn't have to do with the quality of the paper and we should discount this score as an outlier."

I am submitting a paper on topic X, which I know is an area of expertise for committee member Y. Can I ask that Y be a senior reviewer of my paper? 

I am submitting a paper on topic X, which I know is an area of expertise for committee member Y. Can I ask that Y not be a senior reviewer of my paper, because Y works for a competing company? 
No. Indeed, Y may well be the best qualified reviewer for your work, and if so, we may ask Y to be the senior reviewer.

Who knows the identities of the authors and how is that information used during the review process? 
Only the primary and secondary reviewers of a paper know the identity of a submission's authors. This information is normally used to avoid conflicts of interest when choosing tertiary reviewers. Authors' identities are not discussed amongst reviewers on the BBS, nor at the committee meeting, and so papers are judged solely on their merit, as determined by the reviews.

Isn't the committee more likely to accept papers by committee members and other insiders? How do you prevent a conflict of interest? 
Any paper on which a committee member has a conflict of interest will not be discussed while that committee member is in the room. While each committee member has a list of papers, information about the reviewers will not be available to the PC members. In general, the acceptance rate for papers by committee members has been slightly higher than the acceptance rate for those in the overall submission pool. But the acceptance rate for these same people has also been higher in years when they were not on the committee; they're invited to be on the committee, in part, because of their expertise in the field.

Is there a quota for the number or percentage of papers accepted? 
Although the acceptance rate of SIGGRAPH papers has remained nearly constant at about 20%, there is no quota for the number of papers that should be accepted; this number arises organically each year from the actions of the committee.

I'm a SIGGRAPH 2016 reviewer, and I'd like to show this paper to one of my students, who frankly knows more about the topic of this paper than I do. May I? 
Yes. You may show a paper under review to a small number of people, normally one or two, providing that you:

  • 1. List their name(s), title(s) (for example, "my PhD student"), and affiliation(s) in the private section of the review form, (question 9, which goes only to the papers committee).
  • 2. Clearly instruct them on the rules of confidentiality of the SIGGRAPH review process. THIS IS IMPORTANT: submissions are confidential, and therefore all information related to rejected submissions must be "forgotten" by all who saw them after the review process is complete.

However, it is not appropriate for others to write the review for you. If this is your intention, then you must discuss it with the senior reviewer who assigned you the paper. At that person's discretion, the paper may be officially reassigned to your student.

Rebuttal Process

What is a rebuttal? 
There will be an opportunity to upload a rebuttal to address factual errors and specific questions in the reviews via the SIGGRAPH online submission system from 7 March 2016 through 10 March 2016. Reviews will be available via the online submission system. Then authors may upload up to 1,000 words of text (no images, video, or URLs to external pages) in the system before 22:00 UTC/GMT, 10 March. The rebuttals will be read by the referees and factored into the discussion leading up to the decisions made at the Technical Papers Committee meeting.

Should I write a rebuttal? 
Any author may upload a rebuttal. The choice of whether to submit one and how much time to spend on it is up to each author. As a general guideline, submitting a rebuttal is a good idea if the paper seems to have a chance of being accepted, and if the reviews contain errors that can be corrected or specific questions than can be answered with short textual descriptions.

What should be included in the rebuttal? 
The rebuttal is for addressing factual errors in the reviews and for answering specific questions posed by reviewers. It is limited to 1,000 words of text, and must be self-contained. It cannot, for instance, contain URLs to external pages. There will be no uploads of images or videos during the rebuttal process. The rebuttal can also help clarify the merits and novelty of the paper with respect to prior work, if it is felt that the reviewers misunderstood the paper's contributions and scope.

Now that I've read the reviews of my paper, I see much better how to organize it so it will be clear to the reader. Can I do this reorganization and upload the new version during the rebuttal period? 
No. The rebuttal period is for addressing factual errors in the reviews, not for getting revised text into the review process. The committee members will have only a short time in which to read and act on your rebuttal, and it must be short and to the point. Hence, it will be limited to 1,000 words of text (no images or video).

Between January and March, we've gotten some really cool new results for our paper. Can I upload those results during the rebuttal period? I'm sure that they will make the reviewers realize the importance of our approach. 
No. The rebuttal period is for addressing factual errors in the reviews, not for getting new results into the review process.

Reviewer #2 says that our collision-detection algorithm won't work on concave objects. But it will, as we just demonstrated with the lid of the teapot. Can we upload an image or movie showing this new result? 
No. Images and video may not be uploaded with rebuttals. In recent years, you could ask the primary referee for permission to upload additional material. However, that feature was eliminated in 2009 to provide greater fairness and less stress in the rebuttal process.

Reviewer #4 clearly didn't read my paper carefully enough. Either that or this reviewer doesn't know anything about the field! How should I respond during the rebuttal period? 
We've all received SIGGRAPH reviews that made us mad, particularly on first reading. The rebuttal period is short and doesn't allow for the cooling-off period that authors have before they write a response to a journal review. As a result, authors need to be particularly careful to address only factual errors or reviewer questions in the rebuttals rather than letting their emotions show through.

Please don't say: "If reviewer #4 had just taken the time to read my paper carefully, he would have realized that our algorithm was rotation invariant." Instead say: "Unfortunately, Section #4 must not have been as clear as we had hoped because Reviewer #4 didn't understand that our algorithm was rotation invariant and he was therefore skeptical about the general applicability of our approach. Here is a revised version of the second paragraph in Section 4, which should clear up this confusion."

Remember that your rebuttal gets sent to all the reviewers; you don't want to offend them. In particular, you want the two senior reviewers to come out of the rebuttal process sufficiently enthused about your paper to champion it at the committee meeting, and if the paper is accepted and needs revision, then you want them to feel sufficiently comfortable with you as an author that they are willing to "shepherd" the paper through the revision process.

I uploaded a rebuttal, but got no feedback. How can I be sure the reviewers received and actually read my rebuttal? 
If you can view your rebuttal comments in the online review system, so can your reviewers. Rest assured that rebuttal information is considered and can be very helpful in the selection process.

Why can't we upload images and videos as was possible prior to 2009? 
Over the past few years, authors could ask the committee for permission to post images, audio, and/or videos on a public BBS. While this feature was sometimes helpful for providing examples that answer specific questions posed by referees, it was used very differently by different authors and regulated differently by different referees. In some cases, an author would be allowed to upload entirely new examples, while nothing was allowed in others. The instructions clearly stated that rebuttals are only for "addressing factual errors in reviews". Yet, some authors would push the limits (for example, "the review said my method doesn't work, and so here are several new results to show that it does work ..."), and some referees were more lenient than others in allowing such uploads. To improve the uniformity of the review process, rebuttals will be limited to only 1,000 words of text. No images and no video can be uploaded with the rebuttal for any paper. This change should improve the fairness of the rebuttal process, and also decrease the pressure on submitters to create new results during the short rebuttal process.

Will we use the bulletin board system (BBS) for discussion during the rebuttal period? 
There will be no discussion back-and-forth between authors and referees on any BBS during the review process. Prior to 2009, referees could ask questions of authors on a public BBS at any time prior to the committee meeting, and authors could provide extended answers, sometimes with new visual results in response to specific questions. Thus, the review process was different for different papers, and unnecessarily stressful for all. Presently, there is no longer a public BBS. Instead, the authors have the opportunity to upload a single, text-only rebuttal. This change was made to increase the fairness and reduce the stress of the rebuttal process. If your paper is accepted, the bulletin boards will be opened for discussions during the revision process.


Are papers merely published in print, or is there a presentation as well? 
There is a presentation, of 18 minutes in length, followed by a few minutes of discussion and questions.

Where can I get the ACM Copyright Form on the web? I need to show it to my employers before I submit. 
The ACM Copyright Form will be available soon.

My paper was just accepted to SIGGRAPH 2016, and I'm thrilled. But now my boss points out that I can't use Bart Simpson as the example in my paper because I don't have the rights to use him. What do I do now? 
The Call for Technical Papers explicitly stated that you MUST have permissions for all the images in your paper and the footage on your videotape, CD-ROM, or DVD-ROM at the time of submission. You should immediately tell the Technical Papers Chair what you propose to use as a replacement. If the new images or footage are not substantively similar to that submitted for review in the judgment of the Chair and the Papers Advisory Board, then acceptance of your paper will be rescinded. The archival record (Conference Proceedings) must contain material that is equivalent to what the reviewers saw at the time of review.

Referrals to TOG

My paper was accepted with major revisions to a subsequent issue of ACM Transactions on Graphics. Does it have to appear there, or can I submit it somewhere else? 
SIGGRAPH 2016 submissions can be withdrawn at any time. The offer to publish a revised version of the paper in an upcoming TOG issue is completely at the discretion of the author.

How soon will my paper accepted with major revisions be published in ACM Transactions on Graphics
The revisions will be verified by the original SIGGRAPH 2016 reviewers, which greatly accelerates the refereeing process. If the revisions are made in a couple of months and found acceptable, the paper is likely to be published soon thereafter in TOG/ACM Digital Library, which may give you the opportunity to present the paper at SIGGRAPH ASIA 2016 or SIGGRAPH 2016.

My paper was accepted with major revisions to ACM Transactions on Graphics. Great, but I want to submit it to another workshop, symposium, or conference first. 
The offer to retain the original SIGGRAPH reviewers evaporates the moment the paper is submitted anywhere else. The paper can always be submitted to TOG later, but it will be reviewed through the ordinary refereeing process, which may, but probably will not, include any of the original SIGGRAPH 2016 reviewers.

Patents and Confidentiality

When will my accepted paper become publicly available? 
Public disclosure of a paper's title, abstract, and contents can have important commercial and legal ramifications. Acceptances are finalized in July, at which time the paper's title, abstract, and 30-word summary (written by the authors) may be disclosed publicly in SIGGRAPH 2016 communications. Excerpts of the paper's companion video may also be disclosed. The SIGGRAPH 2016 Proceedings will be published as Volume 33, Issue #4 of ACM Transactions on Graphics. The publication date of this issue is 10 July 2016. Please be advised that in order to receive maximum international patent protection on your paper's idea, you will need to file your application prior to that date.

What information about my rejected paper will become publicly available? 
No information about rejected papers or papers conditionally accepted for publication in ACM Transactions on Graphics will be made public.

What about patents and confidentiality? Are the two senior reviewers and the three tertiary reviewers under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose the contents of the paper to others? Some organizations like IEEE have all reviewers sign a confidentiality agreement. It's very important that I know for sure, since my employer may want to apply for a patent, and it affects when I may submit the paper to the SIGGRAPH conference. Can I, for example, get a written guarantee of confidentiality?
Reviewers are asked to keep confidential all materials sent to them for review, but they do not sign a confidentiality agreement. In general, there is wide respect for the confidentiality of submissions, but we cannot promise anything, or provide a written guarantee.

It would not be wise for SIGGRAPH 2016 to give you legal counsel on the matter of patents and publication; we urge you to seek independent legal advice. The main issue is that in different jurisdictions (such as Europe) prior public disclosure could invalidate a patent application. The situation is different in North America, where you have one year after public disclosure (for example, publication) to file a patent. It is a common practice for authors to prepare a patent filing coincidentally with their SIGGRAPH 2016 publication.

Technical Papers Committee

Who is on the Technical Papers Committee? 
The Technical Papers Committee consists of (1) the Papers Chair, who was chosen by the SIGGRAPH 2016 Conference Chair and approved by the ACM SIGGRAPH Executive Committee and its Conference Advisory Group; (2) the Technical Papers Advisory Board, consisting of past Technical Papers Chairs and other trusted and experienced advisors, chosen by the SIGGRAPH 2016 Technical Papers Chair; and 3) the Technical Papers Committee, chosen by the Technical Papers Chair with the assistance of the members of the Technical Papers Advisory Board, and consisting of about 50 people whose expertise spans the entire field.

Can I contact members of the Technical Papers Committee with questions? 
In general, although search engines make it a simple matter to find email addresses for these people, we ask that you do not contact them directly about the review process. Instead, please use the SIGGRAPH 2016 Technical Papers Email Contact Form, which sends messages to the Chair, the Advisory Board, and selected administrators of the papers review process.

I've been doing graphics for years. May I be on the Technical Papers Committee? 
The Technical Papers Chair selects the committee with several goals in mind, including: coverage of areas in which we anticipate submissions, getting some "old hands" who have been on the committee before, bringing some new folks into the process, recruiting people who will work well together and treat papers with respect and enthusiasm, and getting representation from diverse communities. If you'd like to participate, send email to the Technical Papers Chair and tell us about yourself and your areas of expertise.

I've volunteered to be on the committee for three years now, and I've never been chosen. What's up with that? 
It may be that we already have committee members with expertise in your area, that others are better qualified, that the chairs do not feel that you've been in the field long enough to be an effective committee member, or any number of other reasons. The committee composition does change from year to year, though. Please keep offering your services.

Just what sort of workload is involved in being on the Technical Papers Committee? 
You must review about 20 papers. For about 10 papers, you must find two additional reviewers, and for the other 10 you must find one additional reviewer. You must attend a Technical Papers Committee meeting, during which time you'll discuss papers, possibly be called on to provide additional reviews of a couple of papers, and be expected to listen carefully to a lot of discussion that has little to do with you. You may also be asked to act as a referee for a paper that's been conditionally accepted or conditionally accepted with minor changes, to verify that the final version meets the requirements set for it. Finally, you may be asked to chair a Technical Papers session at the SIGGRAPH 2016 conference.

What do I get for all the work that I'll be doing as a committee member? 
In material terms, you get a deep discount when registering for SIGGRAPH 2016. You also receive the recognition of your colleagues, the gratitude of authors, and the sense of satisfaction that comes from knowing you've given something back to the organization that helps disseminate research in graphics.


To whom should I send questions about the papers submission and review process?
Use the Technical Papers Email Contact Form. Do not send email directly to the Technical Papers Chair.

First, I might be unavailable for several days. Second, during parts of the submission and review process, I will be buried in email. If you use the contact form, your email will go to the Technical Papers Chair and selected administrators of the papers review process. One of them may be able to answer your question, and they will often do so surprisingly promptly.

If you have a question of extreme delicacy, or a question on which the Technical Papers Chair or a member of the Advisory Board might be conflicted, and only in this case, then you may use a real email address.


I believe that images in a scientific publication fall under the umbrella of the fair use rule. Why do I have to clarify the copyright issues?
Fair use rules do not directly apply to all papers. A publication needs to satisfy certain conditions. See this Wikipedia summary for more information. It is the author's responsibility to make sure that the submitted paper satisfies the conditions when claiming fair use. And this claim must be clearly stated in the submission form. Authors should contact Deborah Cotton at ACM with questions and concerns about fair use and whether a particular image and its use in a paper falls under fair use.

Can I use images in my submission with unclear copyright status and then secure the copyright or replace the images later if the paper is accepted?
No. The paper must be submitted in final form. The reviewers can only judge the paper that is submitted, not a paper that includes material that might be changed after acceptance. Remember: you are declaring that you hold the rights for all materials when you submit your paper. This is the reason why material with unclear copyrights may be rejected.