diff --git a/_data/carousel.yml b/_data/carousel.yml index 0bfdb3292..3f07f55b4 100644 --- a/_data/carousel.yml +++ b/_data/carousel.yml @@ -1,42 +1,3 @@ -# - title: "Location Update" -# description: "IEEE VIS 2024 will now be held in the Hilton Downtown Tampa" -# button-text: "Register Now" -# button-url: "/info/registration/hotel-information" -# image: "2024-hilton.jpg" -# active: "active" - -# - title: "IEEE VIS 2024 will now be fully virtual" -# button-text: "Register Now" -# button-url: "/info/registration/conference-registration" -# image: "virtual_tree.png" -# active: "active" - -# - title: "The Road to VIS 2024 - Decisions" -# button-text: "Latest Blog Post" -# button-url: "/blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-decisions_2" -# image: "road_to_vis24.png" - -# - title: "Keynote Speaker: Dr. Bill Pike" -# button-text: "Read More" -# button-url: "/info/keynote-speaker" -# image: "bill-pike-carousel.jpg" - -# - title: "Capstone Speaker: Professor Catherine D'Ignazio" -# button-text: "Read More" -# button-url: "/info/capstone-speaker" -# image: "catherine-dignazio-carousel.jpg" - -# - title: "IEEE VIS is made possible by our supporters" -# button-text: "Become a supporter" -# button-url: "/supporters" -# image: "09212024-vis-supporters.png" - -# - title: "IEEE VIS 2024 Swag Shop Now Open!" -# button-text: "Read More" -# button-url: "/info/swag" -# image: "vis2024-swag-carousel.png" - - - title: "IEEE VIS 2025 in Vienna, Austria" image: "skyline_vienna.jpg" button-text: "Read More" @@ -48,11 +9,11 @@ # button-url: "/blog/vis-2024-conference-format" # image: "tradewinds_hall.jpg" - # - title: "The Road to VIS 2024 - Latest Blog Post from the Overall Paper Chairs" # button-text: "Latest Blog Post" # button-url: "/blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-decisions" # image: "road_to_vis24.png" + # - title: "Meet your 2023 VEC and VSC Candidates" # description: "The VIS community will vote on a new representative each to join the Vis Executive Committee (VEC) and the Vis Steering Committee (VSC). Check out the Elections page to learn More about the nominees for each position. Elections will begin September 15. Remember to register to vote by August 25!" # button-text: "Elections Page" @@ -66,26 +27,5 @@ # button-url: "/info/awards/best-paper-awards" # active: "active" -# - title: "Test of Time Awards Announced" -# image: "watch_old_wood.jpg" -# description: "The Test of Time awards for Infovis, VAST, and SciVis have been announced." -# button-text: "See the awards" -# button-url: "/info/awards/test-of-time-awards" - -# - title: "Paper Sessions Schedule Announced" -# image: "clock.jpg" -# description: "The tentative schedule for paper presentations has been released." -# button-text: "See schedule" -# button-url: "/info/papers-sessions" - -# - title: "Job postings" -# button-text: "Read More" -# button-url: "/info/jobs" -# image: "jobs.jpeg" -#- title: "Talk Recording Guide" -# description: "Check out some tips for recording your VIS talk from the conference organizers." -# button-text: "See the video" -# button-url: "https://youtu.be/SfWOKH8IR5k" -# image: "vis_presenting_tips.png" diff --git a/_includes/main-banner.html b/_includes/main-banner.html index 5fce904aa..e7592f41f 100644 --- a/_includes/main-banner.html +++ b/_includes/main-banner.html @@ -14,11 +14,11 @@
IEEE VIS: Visualization & Visual Analytics
- {{ include.event-location }}, {{ include.event-date }} + - + {{ include.event-location }}
diff --git a/_posts/2020-10-07-things-are-changing.md b/_posts/2020-10-07-things-are-changing.md deleted file mode 100644 index c17b84663..000000000 --- a/_posts/2020-10-07-things-are-changing.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,82 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: "Things are Changing in 2021: The New VIS Conference" -description: We are introducing a blog for IEEE VIS -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: "The reVISe Committee" -author_contact: revise@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/things-are-changing-2021 ---- - -Hello VIS Community! - -We’re introducing a blog for IEEE VIS, and we’ll kick off the blog with a series of posts by the reVISe committee to highlight some of the things that will be different at IEEE VIS 2021 and beyond. - -Regular attendees of VIS are aware that big changes are coming to VIS in 2021: VIS 2020 will be the last time we will have three separate conferences (VAST, InfoVis, and SciVis). Instead, going forward the content of these three conferences will be under one single conference: IEEE VIS: Visualization & Visual Analytics – or shortened to just IEEE VIS. - -In this blog post we briefly introduce the main changes coming, after giving a bit of historical context and rationale and will point to future posts in this series. - - -## A Brief History -IEEE VIS has undergone many changes over its history. Founded in 1990 as the “IEEE Conference on Visualization”, it had a strong focus on topics that would have fit best into today’s SciVis conference. In 1995, the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis) was held for the first time (the oldest surviving website is from [1996](https://www.hpc.msstate.edu/conferences/vis96/)), and in 2005 the IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics, Science and Technology (VAST) was established. InfoVis and VAST graduated to “conferences” from the “smaller” symposia in 2007 and 2011 respectively (using IEEE’s terminology). In the mid-2000s, VIS began a collaboration with the top journal for visualization research, *IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG)*, which now publishes most papers of these three conferences. All of this is well illustrated in this figure based on [Isenberg et al.](https://sites.google.com/site/vispubdata/home): - - -![]({{ 'assets/posts/IEEE_VIS_History_Update_2021.png' | relative_url }}) -[See PDF Version]({{'assets/posts/IEEE_VIS_History_Update_2021.pdf'| relative_url }}) - -In that time, VIS has grown to a large conference with about 1200 attendees, and became the umbrella conference for longstanding symposia, such as LDAV, VisSec, and VDS, and home to various associated events and workshops. - -Whilst the establishment InfoVis and VAST has been the catalyst for the growth of VIS, the three-conference structure has also exhibited some scientific and organizational issues. For example, some similar topics, which are currently distributed in different conferences, could benefit from more synergy if they are joined up; and some newer or smaller topics could be encouraged if they become more visible without being explicitly categorized as VAST, InfoVis, or SciVis. - -## Restructuring -In 2016, the VIS Executive Committee (VEC) [formed a committee to explore alternative conference structures](http://ieeevis.org/governance/restructuring) that may enhance vibrancy and growth. To make this as democratic as possible, the committee elicited feedback from the community and held workshops at Dagstuhl and Banff in 2018 and a town-hall event at VIS in 2018. - -Based on that committee’s recommendation the reVISe committee was formed in 2019, tasked with making concrete proposals for re-organizing the conference under a single umbrella. This committee then prepared a [proposal for unification](/governance/2020_reVISe_Proposal.pdf) that was presented to the community at VIS 2019. Following some [minor amendments](/governance/2020_reVISe_Proposal_Amendments.pdf), the proposal was formally adopted by the relevant bodies (VEC, the VAST/InfoVis/SciVis steering committees, and VGTC), a [new agreement between VIS and TVCG](/governance/IEEE_VIS_TVCG_Letter_of_Agreement_2020.pdf) was developed, and reVISe prepared a [Charter for VIS](/governance/IEEE_VIS_Charter_2020.pdf), which has since been approved. The reVISe committee assisted the transition process in 2020. The new structure will be fully implemented for VIS 2021 where the three conferences will be integrated into one. - -## What will Change? - -The changes will affect authors, committee members, and organizers of the conference. Some changes are already visible to the VIS community, such as the creation of the unified short paper track, the new keyword set used in submission and review process, and the establishment of Visualization Steering Committee [VSC](http://ieeevis.org/year/2020/info/committees/steering-committees) in place of the three steering committees for VAST, InfoVis, and SciVis. - -In VIS 2021, the unified full paper track will include [six areas](/governance/area-model): -* Area 1: Theoretical and Empirical -* Area 2: Applications -* Area 3: Systems and Rendering -* Area 4: Representations and Interaction -* Area 5: Data Transformations -* Area 6: Analytics and Decisions - -While each paper will be submitted to a specific area, there will be a single unified program committee pooling all expertise together. The review process of each area will be coordinated by two area paper co-chairs (APCs) and the whole processes will be overseen by three overall paper co-chairs (OPCs). The area model will be reviewed regularly by an Area Curation Committee (ACC). - -## Why this Change? - -The unification is expected to bring about several benefits, including: - -* A coherent external and internal view about the subject of visualization and visual analytics and its areas. -* A scientific structure that encourages VIS researchers to take up multiple strands of activities in different areas. -* A consistent experience for authors and reviewers, with a single call for papers and consistent review process for each of the major publication tracks (e.g., VIS-TVCG, short papers, and posters). -* A simpler topic-venue selection mechanism that is easy to navigate, especially for first-time authors and reviewers of the conference; -* A better home for work that doesn’t fit neatly into only one of the three conferences. -* The flexibility of the area model and its systematic review by ACC, which will allow research topics to emerge, grow, and shrink over time without implications to the organizational structure of the conference. -* Simplifications of the organization structure. - -Ultimately, we hope that these changes will aid in unifying, strengthening, and growing our IEEE VIS community. - -## What’s Next? - -We will follow up this introductory post with blog posts about: -* The [area model]({% post_url 2020-10-15-vis-21-area-model %}). -* The new keywords (for [authors]({% post_url 2020-10-18-keywords-for-authors %}) and [program committee members]({% post_url 2020-10-18-keywords-for-pc-members %})). -* The new [governance structure]({% post_url 2020-10-17-designing-vis-governance %}) of VIS. - -The reVISe committee will also, as in 2019, hold another town-hall meeting at VIS 2020 to answer questions by the community about the upcoming changes. You are also welcome to leave comments or ask questions by e-mailing [revise@ieeevis.org](mailto:revise@ieeevis.org). - -We are looking forward to VIS 2020 and all of the exciting changes to come at VIS 2021! - -The reVISe committee, - -Christoph Garth (chair), Min Chen, Alex Endert, Petra Isenberg, Alexander Lex, Shixia Liu, Anders Ynnerman. - -## Acknowledgements - -We would like to take this opportunity to thank two previous members of the reVISe committee: Tamara Munzner (chair) and Torsten Möller, the 2017-2019 restructuring committee (Hanspeter Pfister (chair), Hans Hagen, Daniel Keim, Tamara Munzner, Stephen North), the VEC, the VAST, InfoVis, SciVis SCs, VIS2019 and VIS2020 OCs, and everyone who participated in town-halls or gave feedback in some other way! - diff --git a/_posts/2020-10-15-vis-21-area-model.md b/_posts/2020-10-15-vis-21-area-model.md deleted file mode 100644 index d94eabe8c..000000000 --- a/_posts/2020-10-15-vis-21-area-model.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,46 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: The VIS 2021 Area Model -description: Brief information about the area model adopted from VIS 2021 -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The reVISe Committee -corresponding: Christoph Garth -author_contact: revise@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-21-area-model ---- - -Hello VIS community, - -As you are probably aware, IEEE VIS will transition in 2021 from the current with the three sub-conferences VAST, InfoVis, and SciVis to a unified conference with an area model, with the major goals of allowing IEEE VIS to become more integrated and keeping the review process manageable in light of increasing submission numbers. In February 2019, the VIS Executive Committee (VEC) constituted the reVISe committee to work out (among other things) a specific area model proposal, which was ultimately accepted with minor changes by the VEC at the 2019 VIS conference. - -The original proposal, including the amended changes, can be found [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l-zFDCAg0J844s6sddZuRgRmVDrdUBbq/view?usp=sharing), and a good summary of the area model, including [a detailed description of the areas](/governance/area-model#description-of-vis-areas) and a [list of frequently asked questions](/governance/area-model#frequently-asked-questions), is already published on [ieeevis.org](/governance/area-model). Furthermore, this page also provides some insights on how the area model stands to affect you as an author, reviewer, or paper chair. The purpose of this post is therefore not to restate this information, but rather to provide additional context. - - -## Goals and Process - -The area model reVISe put forward was one of many alternatives considered. In evaluating different models, we took into account a variety of factors, including subject cohesion, area size, reviewer expertise, understandability to the community, and rough balance between areas with regard to likely submission numbers. The development occurred iteratively, and resulted from a combination of data-driven analysis (e.g. detailed estimates of submission numbers per area), grouping of topics, and review-process considerations. - -We designed the area model to work with a review process featuring a pair of area papers chairs for each area, who draw reviewers from a single unified program committee. Furthermore, a major design criterion was to keep the delineation of areas ``soft'', in the sense that typical submission may not fit into exactly one but several areas. We believe this will retain and broaden the existing diversity in terms of topic and contribution types, while avoiding artificial boundaries, and allow a better distribution of expertise across the conference. Therefore, a direct mapping of areas to or from the VAST, InfoVis, and SciVis conferences is not feasible. - -A detailed documentation of our process is available in the form of the [reVISe public minutes](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RgMh9o_OUsGRQHWMLm4CCSGBU3539WIM?usp=sharing). - -## Area Model Evaluation and Evolution - -In the medium to long term, it is likely that the area model will have to change and evolve, in sync with the evolution of the topics represented at the conference. For example, areas are designed to encompass approximately 100 submissions; areas with fewer than 50 submissions could be considered smaller than sensible, and areas exceeding 150 submissions become too large to be practical. Similarly, the emergence of new topics may require modification of area descriptions to ensure that the latter are sufficiently broad and inclusive. Anticipating the need for changes to the area model, reVISe proposed an Area Curation Committee (ACC), whose mission is to continuously evaluate the area model, identify problems, and propose changes. Ultimately, such changes are subject to approval by the VIS Steering Committee, and are envisioned to occur slowly over multiple years. - -To prepare for the introduction of the area model in 2021, and to ensure that the model will work, reVISe conducted a survey among all corresponding authors of VIS 2020 submissions, asking them which area they would have submitted to, and whether they would have considered another area as suitable. While a detailed report is in preparation and will be made available by VIS 2021, initial analysis appears to predict that the area model will work within its design constraints. Furthermore, it appears quite apparent that the timing to subsume the V-I-S trichotomy is excellent, as submitters to all conferences distribute across nearly all areas. - -## Conclusion -To conclude, we believe that the area model will be a factor towards positive change and cohesion for IEEE VIS by allowing it to overcome the boundaries that have grown over time. - -The reVISe committee will also, as in 2019, host a town-hall meeting at VIS 2020 (Thursday Oct 29, 2020; 2pm MT) to answer questions by the community about the upcoming changes. You are also welcome to leave comments or ask questions by joining the **#revise** Discord channel or e-mailing [revise@ieeevis.org](mailto:revise@ieeevis.org). - -See you at VIS 2020! - -The reVISe committee, - -Christoph Garth (chair), Min Chen, Alex Endert, Petra Isenberg, Alexander Lex, Shixia Liu, Anders Ynnerman. - -## Acknowledgements - -We would like to take this opportunity to thank two previous members of the reVISe committee: Tamara Munzner (chair) and Torsten Möller, the 2017-2019 reconstruction committee (Hanspeter Pfister (chair), Hans Hagen, Daniel Keim, Tamara Munzner, Stephen North), the VEC, the VAST, InfoVis, SciVis SCs, VIS2019 and VIS2020 OCs, and everyone who participated in town-halls or gave feedback in some other way! diff --git a/_posts/2020-10-17-designing-vis-governance.md b/_posts/2020-10-17-designing-vis-governance.md deleted file mode 100644 index f80b26c8f..000000000 --- a/_posts/2020-10-17-designing-vis-governance.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,50 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: Designing the VIS Governance Model -description: Short description about the VIS governance model -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The reVISe Committee -corresponding: Christoph Garth -author_contact: revise@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-21-vis-governance ---- - -Hi VIS, - -The motivation for why the reVISe Committee was struck is to provide a unified and inclusive venue for the visualization community. It is a result of the growth of the community over the years, in terms of numbers, but also diversity of intellectual contribution types. - -Previously, contribution types were neatly categorized into separate conferences or symposia at IEEE VIS (or even VisWeek prior to that). This required authors of the content to make decisions about which community to send specific papers to. However, through the growth of the visualization community, these boundaries became less clear. Further, the addition of new and emerging areas would further fragment the community. In response, reVISe proposed a unified governance model for visualization and visual analytics research. - - -The idea behind the governance model is based on a study and in-depth discussion of various governance models used in other contexts ranging from societal governance to company management and academic administration of research and conferences. Some fundamental ambitions and principles derived were: - -1. Transparency to outside observers of decisions and information flow -2. Delegation of mandate follows responsibility (if you’re responsible, you also have decision power) -3. Definition of a hierarchy of bodies with a ratification process to ensure acceptance and validity of decisions. -4. Division of long term policy from operation of yearly instances of the conference. -5. A large scale scope and synergy between research areas to avoid formation of silos but still operation with areas of manageable size -6. Stable but dynamic committees by relying on experienced community members for strategic decision roles, but still allow for rejuvenation of governance structure by promoting roles for junior researchers - -After in-depth and long discussions on various governance models an overall structure began to emerge. The starting point was the definition of a senior steering committee which carries the long term responsibility and decides on strategies and policies. The operation of the annual conference is the responsibility of the executive committee. The relation between the bodies in the governance model also relies on chain of proposal, decision and ratification. This makes it possible to have a model that builds on delegation of mandate and initiatives and still ensures consensus within the whole structure. It also creates transparency in decisions and appointments. - -[![VIS Governance Overview]({{ 'assets/posts/vis-governance.svg' | relative_url }})]({{ 'assets/posts/vis-governance.svg' | relative_url }}) - -Some of the critical design choices are related to the role of the program committee and the curation of the areas. After a long discussion we decided to have a unified program committee for all of VIS. The main benefit of this setup is that PC members will be available to review across multiple areas and it also prevents formation of reviewing silos. The main challenge here is of course the management of the PC and the assignment of manuscripts. A consequence of the unified PC was also the need to appoint overall program chairs to coordinate the work of area program chairs and ensure that the same policy applies to all areas and assist the chairs in any overall matters arising in working with the area model. - -Another important new committee in the governance structure is the area curation committee. The whole new model depends on wise, clear and dynamic definitions of areas. In view of this we decided to propose a separate committee to monitor and propose changes to the ara model. Here we have to rely on members of our community with deep insights in the field and also with foresight to have an agile approach to new topics of interest. - -It is our hope that the new governance structure will serve our community well for many years to come and provide the foundation needed to let VIS thrive and generate impact far beyond the boundaries of the community. - -See you at VIS 2020! - -The reVISe committee, - -Christoph Garth (chair), Min Chen, Alex Endert, Petra Isenberg, Alexander Lex, Shixia Liu, Anders Ynnerman. - -## Acknowledgements - -We would like to take this opportunity to thank two previous members of the reVISe committee: Tamara Munzner (chair) and Torsten Möller, the 2017-2019 reconstruction committee (Hanspeter Pfister (chair), Hans Hagen, Daniel Keim, Tamara Munzner, Stephen North), the VEC, the VAST, InfoVis, SciVis SCs, VIS2019 and VIS2020 OCs, and everyone who participated in town-halls or gave feedback in some other way ! - -#### Note - -An earlier version of this post mistakenly contained an incorrect depiction of the governance structure. diff --git a/_posts/2020-10-18-keywords-for-authors.md b/_posts/2020-10-18-keywords-for-authors.md deleted file mode 100644 index 356da4f18..000000000 --- a/_posts/2020-10-18-keywords-for-authors.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,88 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: Keywords and their Role in the Reviewing Process (for Authors) -description: And article about keywords and their role in the reviewing process -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The reVISe Committee -corresponding: Petra Isenberg -author_contact: revise@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/keywords-for-authors ---- - -Hello VIS community, - -Keyword selection has been a familiar fixture in the submission and review processes of IEEE VIS for decades. The primary use of keywords in the current PCS system is to create a “match score” between a paper and a potential reviewer. Such match scores are displayed in several stages during the review processes. For example, during the phase for program committee (PC) members to bid on papers, PC members can sort papers in the pool according to the match scores computed based on their individual expertise. When a PC member is looking for reviewers for a specific paper, match scores are automatically computed for the potential reviewers. The algorithm for allocating papers to PC members can be configured with different weighting of bidding information and match scores. Currently, the recommendation is to rely on the bidding information only. The VIS papers co-chairs often compute, visualize, and analyze the distribution of papers in relation to keywords. In the coming year, such information will be extremely useful to the Area Curation Committee (ACC) that reviews the VIS area model and the keyword set regularly. - -One major task undertaken by the reVISe committee was to define a new set of keywords as part of the unification of the three conferences. In IEEE VIS 2020, [this new set of keywords](http://ieeevis.org/year/2020/info/call-participation/paper-keywords#keywords) was deployed in the submission and review processes for several tracks including the full paper tracks of VAST, InfoVis, and SciVis, ahead of their unification in VIS 2021. The purpose of this blog post (Part 1) is to explain how the keywords matter to paper authors and to offer a little help in choosing keywords. This will be followed by a second blog post ([Part 2]({% post_url 2020-10-18-keywords-for-pc-members %})) where we explain how the keywords matter to PC members. - - - -## Part 1: Keywords for Paper Authors - -If you are the author of a paper, short or long, sent to IEEE VIS you will have to choose keywords for your submission inside the paper submission system (PCS) where the page looks like this: - -![]({{ 'assets/posts/pcs-keywords.jpg' | relative_url }}) - -You might wonder whether it is possible to tick “wrong” boxes and how doing so would affect your paper. In this blog post we explain in a little more detail what the effect of ticking keyword boxes are in practice. In short: t**he main purpose of keywords is to make sure that your paper gets the best possible reviewers**. But how? Let’s first take a step back and talk a little about a typical reviewing process. - -### Background: what are PC members and what is bidding? - -Generally at VIS each paper gets assigned two reviewers from a pre-selected list. People on this list who have shown expertise in Visualization/Visual Analytics and past reviewing skills and have agreed to review and supervise reviewing of a certain number of papers in a given year. This list of people is called the **program committee, or PC** for short. Each paper currently gets two PC members assigned. It is important that these PC members are excited to review your paper and have expertise on the topic of the paper because they will each have to find one additional reviewer outside of the program committee, called the **external reviewer**. - -#### Ok, so what does this have to do with my keywords? - -As you read above, it is important that your paper gets PC members that are a good fit for your paper. One mechanism that ensures this fit is called **bidding**. Think of bidding as a self-declaration of PC members about which papers they would like to review. PC members see an abstract, title, and keywords for each paper submitted to the conference and need to select if they “want” to, are “willing” to or “reluctant” to review each paper from the list. - -When PC members bid on papers they go through an interface that looks like this: - -![]({{ 'assets/posts/pcs-bidding.jpg' | relative_url }}) - -In the bid column on the left they give their bid for a paper. The second column is called “score”, this is a matching score calculated **based on the keywords** you selected for your paper and the expertise each PC member declared for the keywords you selected (details about the expertise selection will be the subject of another blog post). The score here is 0.83 which is pretty high. Next are the other information authors will see about your paper: title, they keywords you selected, and the abstract you entered. - -PC members have a large number of papers to go through in the interface above and they often sort by the score column to get papers that best match their expertise or they use the search field to search for keywords. In the future there will also be features that allow PC members to filter by keywords they rated themselves highly on. - -So the purpose of selecting keywords as a paper author is to get your paper rated highly for the right kind of people so that they will see your paper in their list and will declare it as a paper they want to or are willing to review. - -### Keyword Selection Strategies for Authors - -So what can you do to get rated highly for the right PC members? It’s rather simple, select those keywords that describe **an expertise** that you wish your reviewers to have. In contrast to many other keyword selection exercises you **do NOT select keywords to describe the content of your paper**. Focus on reviewing expertise you would like to have. - -For example, let’s take one of the highest cited paper of recent years: - -> [D3: Data-Driven Documents](http://vis.stanford.edu/files/2011-D3-InfoVis.pdf) - Michael Bostock, Vadim Ogievetsky, Jeffrey Heer - IEEE Trans. Visualization & Comp. Graphics (Proc. InfoVis), 2011 - -This paper could benefit from reviewers with expertise in building visualization toolkits and libraries and people and building of concrete implementations. So for this paper we would primarily select keywords: "**Software Architecture, Toolkit/Library, Language**" and "**Software Prototype**". Now any PC member who rated themselves expert on these keywords would see the paper pop up higher in their list. - -We wouldn’t select some other keywords that would describe the content of the paper because they don’t describe the reviewing expertise that would be important for the paper: For example “Computational Benchmark Studies”. The paper includes such a study but it is not the main contribution and we’d rather have reviewers with expertise on the software design. - -### What are the “Other” keywords and the textfields for in the keyword selection interface? - -With the move of the whole conference to the new unified model there is now a process in place for updating keywords. There is a new committee called the _Area Curation Committee_ (ACC) that every year will do an analysis of how keywords are used. They will look at whether certain keywords are too broad (too many papers select it), underused, and which keywords may be missing. - -When you select “Other Data”, “Other Application Area”, “Other Contribution”, or “Other Topics and Techniques” you are encouraged to provide Missing Keywords in text fields just below the main list of keywords. The ACC will look at all suggestions for missing keywords and if they are sufficiently frequent will propose an update to the keyword list in the future. In addition, the ACC will look at feedback provided in the text field “feedback on the list of keywords” in order to suggest improvements for the future. - - -### FAQ - - -#### What is the worst thing I can do? - -There are three things you can do wrong: - -1. Select no keyword at all. If you do this your paper will always have a match score of -1 and will be at the bottom of the list for every PC member. -2. Select only one or multiple of “datatype agnostic”, “domain agnostic”, “other contribution”, or “other topic”. PC members cannot rate themselves on these keywords and hence the result will be the same as if you selected no keyword at all -3. Select many (>5) or even all keywords. Doing this will ensure that you have a matching score but the score will be rather low for every PC member making your paper reside somewhere at the bottom of the bidding list. - -#### What happens if nobody bids on my paper? - -This can happen but it is rather rare. If it did happen then the paper chairs will ensure that your paper is assigned appropriate PC members. - -#### What else can I do so people bid on my paper? - -Besides selecting appropriate keywords there are a few things you can do to make sure that your paper is bid on: 1) have a descriptive title, 2) write a good abstract that is not too long and describes in the first sentences what the paper is about. Imagine a PC member reading 100+ abstracts during bidding - they will want to know foremost a) what the paper is about and b) why they should care about your paper. Make sure to say this concisely and clearly. - -#### What is the relationship between keywords and areas? - -There is no formal mapping between keywords and areas. Your selection of keywords is not restricted by the area you chose for your paper. The keywords you chose don’t affect the areas you can choose from. diff --git a/_posts/2020-10-18-keywords-for-pc-members.md b/_posts/2020-10-18-keywords-for-pc-members.md deleted file mode 100644 index 3a808961a..000000000 --- a/_posts/2020-10-18-keywords-for-pc-members.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,63 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: Keywords and their Role in the Reviewing Process (for PC members) -description: And article about keywords and their role in the reviewing process -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The reVISe Committee -corresponding: Petra Isenberg -author_contact: revise@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/keywords-for-pc-members ---- - -Hello VIS community, - -Since IEEE VIS 2020 we use a new set of keywords in several submission processes. The purpose of this blog post is to explain how the keywords matter to program committee members and to offer a little help in choosing keywords. [A first blog post]({% post_url 2020-10-18-keywords-for-authors %}) already covered how keywords matter for paper authors. - -Read this text if you have been selected as a PC member for IEEE VIS. You should be interested to get a good set of paper suggested to you that you are interested in and maybe even excited about reviewing. - - -### Expertise Rating - -Your first contact with the new keywords will be the expertise rating interface. - -Your keyword selection interface will look like this: - -![]({{ 'assets/posts/pcs-expertise.jpg' | relative_url }}) - -The page will explain in more detail what the categories "expert", "competent", "limited", and "none" mean. You will recognize the new keywords used at VIS by the additional explanations added as a second line under each keyword. - -Rating your expertise in this interface will be important later for the bidding interface. Do it as truthfully as possible. Paper chairs might also peak at your expertises when they need to make changes to paper assignments. - -**Note that setting your expertise to "expert" does not mean that you will by default or automatically be assigned papers related to the keyword.** This is particularly important to remember for the large domain keywords shown above. Of course nobody can be an expert in all visualization applications to "Social Science, Education, Humanities, Journalism, ..." for example. However, if you are interested in seeing recommendations in the bidding interface for education papers and you consider yourself an expert in visualization for education, then select "expert" for this keyword as those papers will show high in your list. You do not need to bid on the journalism, intelligence analysis, etc. papers that will also show up there - remember that the numbers of papers that have chosen this particular keyword is likely manageable. - -### Bidding - -The second time you’ll be confronted with keywords will be during bidding. We already described bidding in Part 1 of the keywords series. If you’ve never participated in it, take a look at this post first. - -In the new area model you will have a lot more papers in your list, therefore you will not be able to look at all abstracts. Keywords will help you to filter the list to papers of interest through a) the matching score calculated between your expertise and the keywords selected by paper authors and b) through a search/filter interface on the bidding page. - -### Paper Assignment - -You will not be part of the paper assignment process but it is worth explaining how both expertise rating and bidding influence which papers you will be assigned. - -Paper-to-PC member assignment is a multi-step process at IEEE VIS: - -1. **The initial matching of PC members to papers will be done primarily based on bids.** -2. Then paper chairs will check this initial assignment. If it seems sensible, they will keep it and otherwise adjust it. They will try their best to make sure that you receive papers that you wanted to or were willing to read, that match your expertise, while balancing conflicts of interest between assigned PC members and paper authors. - -Step 1 on the process, however, is automatic and based on your bids - and NOT on automatic keyword matching. This is a change in the process from some previous years. Therefore for you the purpose of keywords is to help you navigate and filter through the large set of papers you will have to bid on. - -#### What strategies should I use for rating my expertise? - -Be truthful in your selection of expertise ratings. You want to bid on papers that you know something about and selecting the right keywords as "expert" will help here. You have been selected to be on the PC because the paper chairs believe you are an expert in some area of VIS. This means that you should rate yourself expert on several keywords; less than 3 is probably too few and more than 8-10 is probably too many. Note that you can still rate yourself "expert" if you are an expert in one of the subareas of a larger keyword: "Social Science, Education, Humanities, Journalism, ...", for example. - -#### What strategies should I use for bidding? - -In the new area model you will have up to 500 papers in your list and you will not be able to look at all abstracts. Therefore start by setting all papers to "reluctant", then start organizing your list. Sort your interface by the match score, use the search box to find papers with keywords that interest you, use the filter mechanism to only look at papers with keywords you rated yourself "expert" on, and look at papers submitted to areas that match your expertise best. Also look for papers where authors made mistakes in selecting keywords - in particular those with a matching score of -1. Some hidden gems might be residing there. - -- Select all papers you would be interested in reviewing to "want". The more the better. You are much more likely to receive a paper from this list than from any other. -- Select all papers you could review because you have the expertise to "willing". Many more would be better. -- Leave everything else as reluctant. -- You should have bid around 40 papers together in the "want" and "willing" category. - -Keep in mind that the fewer papers you select the more likely you will receive one from your "reluctant" pile - and this pile will be huge and random. So do take bidding seriously and select as many papers as want or willing as you can. If you get a "reluctant" paper assigned paper chairs will look at the assignment to make sure that you could do the job but you’ll make their life significantly easier if you selected many papers that they could consider to give you instead, should a fit indeed be bad. diff --git a/_posts/2021-03-12-making-your-submission-reviewer-friendly.md b/_posts/2021-03-12-making-your-submission-reviewer-friendly.md deleted file mode 100644 index be8f3dead..000000000 --- a/_posts/2021-03-12-making-your-submission-reviewer-friendly.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,29 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: Making Your Submission Reviewer Friendly -description: How keywords will be used in -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The ACC Committee -corresponding: Alex Endert -author_contact: area_curation_committee@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/making-your-submission-reviewer-friendly ---- - -Hello VIS Community, - -It’s that time of the year: the VIS deadline is approaching fast. If you’re submitting a paper, we want to give you some guidelines on how to choose **keywords** on the submission form. A much more detailed overview is given in [this post](http://ieeevis.org/year/2021/blog/keywords-for-authors), and a list of keyword descriptions and example papers [here](http://ieeevis.org/year/2021/info/call-participation/paper-keywords#keywords). Here are some tips for selecting submission keywords: - - -1. **Use keywords to describe the expertise needed to review your submission.** Try not to use keywords to summarize the content of your submission. [Reviewers use these keywords to describe their expertise](http://ieeevis.org/year/2021/blog/keywords-for-pc-members). Your submission keywords will be matched with how reviewers rated their expertise on the same keywords. -2. **Prioritize the main contribution** of your paper instead of an exhaustive description. Say your paper introduces an interesting new idea as a secondary contribution. If you use a keyword that highlights this secondary contribution, a reviewer with that expertise might emphasize that aspect. This might not be what you intended. -3. **Don’t use too many keywords.** Keep it simple: providing too many keywords makes it harder to match your paper with reviewers that cover all keywords. Instead, consider selecting one or two keywords from each high-level category that characterizes a major aspect of your submission. -4. **Don’t select just one keyword.** Consider selecting one or two per high-level category, as selecting just a single keyword likely doesn’t help reviewers in understanding your paper. - -Keywords are used by PCS to generate a match score between reviewer expertise and submissions. When keywords are not chosen carefully, it is harder for qualified reviewers to find them and bid on them for review. This can happen if you provide no keywords, or too many. Finally, don’t forget: a **descriptive title** and a **clear, concise abstract** are also important to interest reviewers in your work. Don’t wait until the last minute and pick keywords that are “good enough”. Think about all the time you’ve spent on this research, and the paper -- it’s worth your time to consider the best keywords! - - -### I’d like a new keyword! Help! - -The keywords available to submissions and reviewers were carefully redesigned by the reVISe committee. Still, VIS is a thriving, fast-changing field, and your submission might not be a great match to the available keywords. For these situations, **the submission form contains a** **free-form feedback field**; use this to indicate any problems or improvements such as difficulties applying a keyword, difficulties finding a keyword for your paper, suggestions on high-level categories, etc. If you’ve found it necessary to use “Other Contribution“, “Domain Agnostic”, or “Other Application” keywords, please use this field to explain your decision. This information will be collected by the conference organization and taken into account in the future. - -_This post was written by members of the Area Curation Committee (ACC). The charter of the ACC includes ensuring that the submission areas (new in 2021) are appropriate for the work that appears at VIS, as well as the submission keywords._ diff --git a/_posts/2021-09-23-vis-22-in-oklahoma.md b/_posts/2021-09-23-vis-22-in-oklahoma.md deleted file mode 100644 index d170e993b..000000000 --- a/_posts/2021-09-23-vis-22-in-oklahoma.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,16 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: VIS 2022 to be held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA -description: VIS conference changing locations from Melbourne, Australia, to Oklahoma, USA -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS Executive Committee -corresponding: Lisa Avila -author_contact: vec@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-22-in-oklahoma ---- - -Hello VIS Community, - -In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the uncertainty around Australian travel restrictions, the VEC and the 2022 core conference committee have decided that it is in the best interest of the conference and the community to postpone the Melbourne, Australia event until 2023. The VEC truly appreciates the flexibility and dedication shown by our co-chairs Tim Dwyer, Sarah Goodwin and Michael Wybrow, and we are certain that VIS 2023 in Melbourne, Australia will be worth the wait! - -The VEC is pleased to announce that VIS 2022 will be held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. David Ebert, Danielle Szafir, and Hendrik Strobelt will co-chair the conference, and planning is already underway for the venue. We are grateful to David, Danielle and Hendrik for their upcoming leadership. We hope to see everyone in OKC next year! diff --git a/_posts/2022-01-11-vis-24-in-tampa-bay.md b/_posts/2022-01-11-vis-24-in-tampa-bay.md deleted file mode 100644 index eeed2a4c0..000000000 --- a/_posts/2022-01-11-vis-24-in-tampa-bay.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,15 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: VIS 2024 to be held in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA -description: VIS 2024 to be held in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS Executive Committee -corresponding: Lisa Avila -author_contact: vec@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-24-in-tampa-bay ---- - -Hello VIS Community, - -The VEC is pleased to announce that VIS 2024 will be held in Tampa Bay, FL, USA from 13.10.2024 - 18.10.2024. -Paul Rosen (University of South Florida), Kristi Potter (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), and Remco Chang (Tufts University) will co-chair the conference. diff --git a/_posts/2022-05-11-plublishing-under-plan-s.md b/_posts/2022-05-11-plublishing-under-plan-s.md deleted file mode 100644 index 99bb4734b..000000000 --- a/_posts/2022-05-11-plublishing-under-plan-s.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,51 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: Publishing papers covered under Plan S -description: Publishing papers covered under Plan S -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS Open Practices Committee -corresponding: Lonni Besançon, Cody Dunne -author_contact: open_practices@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/plublishing-under-plan-s ---- - -**What is Plan S?** - -[Plan S](https://www.coalition-s.org/faq-theme/publication-fees-costs-prices-business-models/) is an open-access initiative that was started in 2018. Specific state-funded research organizations and institutions have signed on to Plan S, which requires that scientists and researchers whose work has been funded by them publish said work in open repositories or in journals that provide free access to manuscripts. More specifically, authors covered by Plan S should be able to make their accepted manuscript available for free and published under an Open License (such as CC-BY). - -The policy at IEEE for accommodating authors whose papers are covered under Plan S is currently evolving. At present, IEEE works with authors’ constraints on a case-by-case basis. - -**IEEE VIS is committed to helping any author affected by Plan-S find an accommodation so their work can appear at VIS and on IEEE Xplore.** - -**For journal papers:** - -Currently, TVCG as a hybrid journal is not Plan S compliant. - -Here are example solutions that have been used in the past: -You would not be able to pay the TVCG article processing charge using money from your Plan S funder in order to satisfy your requirements. However, you could pay that article processing charge using other funds to appear in TVCG. -Instead of appearing in TVCG, your VIS paper could appear in the fully-open-access IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society. We would encourage you to cite papers as appearing in "IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society (IEEE VIS 2022)”. - -**For conference papers:** - -For short papers and other conference proceedings that do not appear in the TVCG Special Issue, [IEEE does not currently have an open access option](https://www.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-org/ieee/web/org/pubs/author_version_faq.pdf). One option we are pursuing: -Your paper could appear instead in the fully-open-access IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society. - -If you have any questions, please reach out to the VIS Open Practices chairs (Lonni Besançon, Cody Dunne, and Carlos Scheidegger) at: [open_practices@ieeevis.org](mailto:open_practices@ieeevis.org). - -**For everybody:** - -All IEEE VIS authors have the right to post a preprint of their submitted or accepted paper to an open access repository (see the [open practices page](http://ieeevis.org/year/2022/info/open-practices/open-practices)). Doing so is good for the community, but not sufficient for Plan S compliance. Once accepted, it would be beneficial to label the paper as “Accepted at IEEE VIS 2022". - -Please let us know when you submit your camera-ready paper whether you believe that your paper is covered under Plan S. There will be a field on PCS where you can note this and provide details about your funding agency. We will follow up with you individually with options and next steps to ensure your publication can appear in VIS. - -As VIS papers may end up published under different venues on IEEE Xplore (e.g., TVCG, OJCS, Proc. VIS) we are exploring the option of creating a VIS Anthology website that curates a list of all accepted VIS manuscripts. - -**Notes regarding specific funders:** - -**UKRI:** Update 2022-07-14: On 2022-05-20, IEEE and UKRI came to [an agreement](https://open.ieee.org/ieee-compliance-with-ukri/) under which authors could be in compliance using two routes. For TVCG papers, Route 2 is the most viable option. Open access and other publications costs like article processing charges for papers can't be paid for with UKRI grant money. To be in compliance, **authors must, within 12 months**: -* Deposit the camera-ready paper in an institutional or subject repository (e.g. [OSF Preprints](https://osf.io/preprints/) or [arXiv](https://arxiv.org/)). -* Use a [CC BY license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) for the repository version, which will be provided to the author by IEEE as long as the funder is properly identified. To request this license, authors should send a request to IEEEs Intellectual Property Rights group at copyrights@ieee.org as soon as they submit their paper for review. -* Include this text in the `Acknowledgements` section: - > For the purpose of open access, the author(s) has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to any Accepted Manuscript version arising. - -See [the agreement announcement](https://open.ieee.org/ieee-compliance-with-ukri/) and [UKRI Open Access Policy slides](https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/UKRI-090222-UKRIOpenAccessPolicy-InformationPack.pdf) for more details. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/_posts/2023-02-04-vis-25-in-vienna.md b/_posts/2023-02-04-vis-25-in-vienna.md deleted file mode 100644 index 557b32114..000000000 --- a/_posts/2023-02-04-vis-25-in-vienna.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,15 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: VIS 2025 to be held in Vienna, Austria -description: VIS 2025 to be held in Vienna, Austria -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS Executive Committee -corresponding: Lisa Avila -author_contact: vec@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-25-in-vienna ---- - -Hello VIS Community, - -The VEC is pleased to announce that IEEE VIS 2025 will be held in Vienna, Austria from 02.11.2025 - 07.11.2025. Johanna Schmidt (VRVis Vienna), Kresimir Matković (VRVis Vienna), Barbora Kozlíková (Masaryk University), and Eduard Gröller (TU Wien) will co-chair the conference. - diff --git a/_posts/2023-02-21-vis-2023-conference-format.md b/_posts/2023-02-21-vis-2023-conference-format.md deleted file mode 100644 index 39bba5aa4..000000000 --- a/_posts/2023-02-21-vis-2023-conference-format.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,20 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: IEEE VIS 2023 conference format -description: Blog post concerning IEEE VIS 2023 conference format -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2023 General Chairs -corresponding: Tim Dwyer -author_contact: general_chair@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-23-conference-format ---- - -In deciding the format for IEEE VIS 2023, as well as wanting to ensure the best possible experience for our attendees, we considered a number of factors. - -IEEE VIS was run as a virtual event in 2020 and 2021 and in hybrid mode in 2022 due to the pandemic and travel restrictions. A positive of this was the ability to expand the (virtual) attendees to a wider audience. However, in hybrid mode there was a detrimental effect to the in-person experience. For example, remote presentations typically led to lower levels of engagement among in-person attendees. For VIS 2023, time-zone differences between Melbourne and places where VIS has previously been hosted would severely limit the effectiveness of live remote participation. There has also been a significant (and growing) cost to supporting hybrid streaming of content and virtual participation. - -The original proposal to host VIS in Melbourne was put forward in 2019 with the intention of bringing VIS to the Asia-Pacific region for the first time. This will make it possible for many people from our region to attend the conference in-person for the first time and to make VIS a truly global conference. At that time (prior to COVID-19), the conference secured significant financial support from the Victorian State Government. But the funding requires a minimum number of in-person attendees. - -Therefore, IEEE VIS is following other major computer science conferences (e.g., ACM UIST, ICAART, IEEE Quantum Week) in returning to an “in-person first” arrangement. While this decision will reduce access to the conference for some of the VIS audience, being held in the Asia-Pacific region will also allow people to attend who were previously unable. - -IEEE VIS 2023 will be an “in-person first” event. This means that as much as possible we expect participants to attend and present in person. One caveat is for people in exceptional circumstances. We will still consider allowing a small number of remote presentations, however, this will be by request and considered on a case-by-case basis. We will offer an “Online Content” registration which will allow people who can’t attend in person to access papers (pdfs, supplemental material), posters (pdfs), and pre-recorded presentations, as well as allowing asynchronous discussion between online and in-person attendees. Associated events will be in-person and these events will have the option to provide content (e.g., documents, videos) of online-content attendees. diff --git a/_posts/2023-03-14-vis-2023-clarification-paper-format.md b/_posts/2023-03-14-vis-2023-clarification-paper-format.md deleted file mode 100644 index 85ac40fe6..000000000 --- a/_posts/2023-03-14-vis-2023-clarification-paper-format.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,16 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: Clarification of paper format and final two pages -description: Clarification of Paper Format and Final Two Pages -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2023 Overall Papers Chairs -author_contact: opc@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2023-clarification-paper-format ---- - -The paper submission format this year includes the possibility of adding content other than references on the 10th and 11th pages of a submission. -As stated in the submission guidelines, this additional non-reference material can include “Supplemental Material, Figure Credits, and Acknowledgements sections”. - -Please note, however, that this new additional material only includes pointers to the actual Supplemental Material (which is submitted elsewhere) and explanations of what was included, as well as credits for the figures that appear in the first nine pages of the submission (only necessary if using material that requires crediting because it was previously published elsewhere; nothing needed for new figures generated by the authors). - -Do NOT include actual supplemental materials or actual paper figures and captions on the 10th and 11th pages. diff --git a/_posts/2023-06-13-vis-2023-keynote-speakers-and-banquet-update.md b/_posts/2023-06-13-vis-2023-keynote-speakers-and-banquet-update.md deleted file mode 100644 index e25e9c3c4..000000000 --- a/_posts/2023-06-13-vis-2023-keynote-speakers-and-banquet-update.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,11 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: Keynote Speakers and Banquet update -description: Keynote Speakers and Banquet update -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2023 General Chairs -author_contact: general_chair@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2023-keynote-speakers-and-banquet-update ---- - -We are very excited to announce that **Dr. Drew Berry** and **Professor Anders Ynnerman** will give [VIS 2023’s keynote](https://ieeevis.org/year/2023/info/keynote-speaker): “Visualizing the Chemistry of Life on giant 360-degree screens”. Further, plans are currently shaping up to host the Wednesday evening conference banquette in association with screenings of Drew and Anders’ latest immersive visualization of the Chemistry of Life at the Melbourne Planetarium. diff --git a/_posts/2023-11-29-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md b/_posts/2023-11-29-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index fff278adf..000000000 --- a/_posts/2023-11-29-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,16 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: The Road to VIS 2024 - Welcome! -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Overall Paper Chairs -author_contact: opc@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-welcome ---- - -Hello! IEEE VIS 2023 in Melbourne ended just earlier this fall, yet the scientific work for IEEE VIS 2024 has already begun. We are the three Overall Papers Chairs (OPCs) for IEEE VIS 2024—Tamara Munzner, Holger Theisel, and Niklas Elmqvist—and we are just now coordinating with the Area Papers Chairs (APCs) get the work started for next year. -We have often heard that the VIS reviewing process can be opaque not only to students and newcomers, but even to more senior members of the community. There have been blog posts in the past on the review process as well as the reviewer scorecard, but more can certainly be done. Besides, the process has changed radically after the reVISe restructuring and unification effort. - -We are now planning a whole series of blog posts on the VIS 2024 scientific review process throughout the coming year. The real work for the VIS 2024 OPCs and APCs starts already this November and December with the production of the call for papers (CfP), and we will endeavor to write about this effort. After this comes the formation of the program committee (PC), and we think this will be a good opportunity to describe what it takes to get on the PC and what it means to serve on it. The next milestone is the conflicts, bidding, and paper allocation process where PC members vie for handling the papers submitted to the conference. We imagine we will also try to do some data analysis of the submitted papers. We may write something about reviewing and discussing papers. We'll definitely talk about the decision-making process of accepting and rejecting papers because this is something that a lot of people find mysterious (even nefarious!). And perhaps we'll round it all out with something about the best paper selection process as well as how sessions are made and how session chairs are selected. And that should be that. Phew. - -Please feel free to contact us if you have comments or suggestions for posts in this series. What burning questions do you have about what goes on in the VIS review process? We're looking forward to a year of interacting with the community and giving you insight into the process that traditionally only us OPCs and APCs have. See you in Tampa! diff --git a/_posts/2023-12-18-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md b/_posts/2023-12-18-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index c6e1da2f9..000000000 --- a/_posts/2023-12-18-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,37 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: The Road to VIS 2024 - The Call for Papers -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Overall Paper Chairs -author_contact: opc@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-call-for-papers ---- - -It’s getting close to the winter break for the Northern hemisphere, and soon those of us who celebrate Christmas will be closing down our email clients and getting ready for some well-deserved rest. However, us paper chairs have not been idle: we have been spending the last months getting the Call for Papers (CfP) for VIS 2024 in order. - -By the time you are reading this, the CfP is [ready and available on the website](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/info/call-participation/call-for-participation). However, getting there involved some labor and discussion within the OPC (overall paper chairs) and APC (area paper chairs) teams, as well as some negotiation with the VIS Steering Committee (VSC) and Executive Committee (VEC). We will discuss the process and highlight the aspects of the CfP that are new this year in this blog post. - -The call for papers is an important document because it sets out all of the parameters of the submission and review process for a conference. It can be seen as a contract for what kind of work the conference expects, how it should be formatted and organized, and how it will be reviewed. This is also the place where changes to this process must be first introduced. For VIS, you can’t just surprise authors and reviewers with unexpected changes; they must first be approved by the VSC and/or VEC, and then introduced into the CfP in a timely manner. - -We had four important changes we wanted to make this year: -1. Reduce the number of reviewers per paper from four to three; -2. Reduce the size of the program committee by increasing the load per PC member from six to eight papers; -3. Introduce a fast-track to TVCG recommendation in addition to plain reject; and -4. Recruit an assistant to the overall paper chairs. - -To understand all these changes, you must first understand how the VIS review process works. Each paper submitted to VIS gets allocated to two members of the program committee: the primary and the secondary reviewer. These are relatively senior and reliable members of the community. Both will read the paper and write a full review. Furthermore, the primary is also tasked with leading the online discussion and writing a summary review. In addition, for the last few years, both the primary and the secondary assigned one external reviewer each, bringing the total to four per paper. - -Our first proposal is designed to reduce reviewer fatigue in the community by having only the secondary invite an external reviewer, thereby reducing the number of reviews per paper from four to three. We OPCs feel comfortable in doing this because the VIS review quality overall is very high. However, this does make the choice of the single external reviewer particularly important, because their influence will be stronger as one of only three reviews. - -What’s this about reviewer fatigue? The fact of the matter is that our scientific community, similar to many others, is seeing an increased number of submissions, particularly since the COVID pandemic. Why this is happening—increased competition for fewer positions, rising pressure to publish, or the field growing in size—is beyond the scope of this blog post, but the net effect is that there is an increased need for reviewers to handle all these papers, and this in turn is causing reviewer fatigue and even burnout in the community. VIS is not the only field that has seen this effect. - -Anyway, by reducing the number of reviews per paper by 25%, we hope that we can help to reduce reviewer fatigue. And by shrinking the program committee while increasing the load from 6 to 8 papers per PC member (proposal #2), we hope to reduce it even further while not overly straining the current PC members. For one thing, since only secondaries invite externals, the labor of serving on the PC will be somewhat reduced. Some PC members have reported to us having to ask 10-15 people before finally finding a willing reviewer for a paper, so reducing the number of papers you have to find such a reviewer for from six to four should be an improvement. For another, since PC members tend to be more senior than the average member of the reviewer pool, we hope that freeing up some people from the PC means that they will be more willing to pitch in as external reviewers. - -The third proposal is more technical. Last year, every rejected paper was automatically encouraged to resubmit to IEEE TVCG as a major revision. Unfortunately, this was a very noisy signal since some rejected papers needed substantial revision, and would never have advanced to that stage if they had been initially submitted to TVCG in the first place. This year, we are planning on giving this recommendation of a “fast-track” to TVCG to only a few borderline papers where a major revision is likely to bring them into an acceptable state. The remaining rejected papers will merely receive a regular rejection, with no special status with TVCG. - -Finally, the final proposal (#4) is to add Petra Specht, who has long experience helping VIS as far back as VIS 2018 in Berlin, to the OPC team as an assistant. The OPC job is very time-consuming and detail-oriented, and we hope that Petra’s organizational skills will help us do our job better. - -All four proposals have already been approved; the first three by the VSC, and the fourth by the VEC. You can see the fruits of our labor on the brand new VIS 2024 website (where you may be reading this post right now). Please give the documents a read and let us know if you find any inconsistencies. We’re looking forward to an excellent papers program, and hope that our new changes will improve the community for the better. - -Happy holidays to all and we will see you in 2024 with the program committee formation! diff --git a/_posts/2024-01-17-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md b/_posts/2024-01-17-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index 599b41e64..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-01-17-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,29 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: The Road to VIS 2024 - The Program Committee -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Overall Paper Chairs -author_contact: opc@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-PC ---- - -Happy New Year! It's 2024 and we, the Overall Papers Chairs for IEEE VIS 2024, are back with another update in our blog series on "The Road to VIS 2024." This time we are discussing the program committee (PC): its composition, its relation to the six areas and their APCs (area paper chairs), and how you actually get on the PC in the first place. Read on for more! - -Papers submitted to the IEEE VIS conference are reviewed by two program committee (PC) members—the primary and the secondary reviewer—as well as one (new for 2024, it used to be two) external reviewer that is recruited by the secondary from the greater scientific community. All reviewers, both the PC members and the externals, are selected to be trustworthy, reliable, and knowledgeable in the topic of the papers they are reviewing. In addition, everyone who participates in the IEEE VIS review process has agreed to adhere to the basic responsibilities of ethical peer review: promptness, impartiality, professionalism, constructive feedback, integrity, and confidentiality. - -In 2023, the IEEE VIS program committee consisted of a total of 214 members—a big number! These people were primarily chosen from among the relatively senior members of the reviewer pool to provide expertise across the entire spectrum of visualization research. Expertise is vital because a program committee cannot perform its primary function—reviewing papers—if it does not have the necessary knowledge to do so. However, members are also selected to balance a variety of additional factors, including seniority, geographic location, academia vs. industry, demographics (gender, race, etc), quantitative vs. qualitative methods, etc. Diversity is a strength in PC composition: people of different backgrounds bring different perspectives, skills, and prior knowledge to the table, providing a more well-rounded view of submissions than if all PC members are the same. As a case in point, senior researchers provide long experience and a broad perspective of the field, whereas more junior researchers typically have more available time to devote to a review and sometimes more hands-on knowledge on current technologies. - -When submitting to IEEE VIS, authors have to choose the area most relevant for their paper. Just like in 2023, VIS 2024 will have six areas, each headed by two area papers chairs (APCs); see [this page](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/info/committees/conference-committee) for a list of the APCs. However, the program committee itself isn't actually split into areas. Instead, APCs can choose freely among PC members when allocating submissions to individual primary and secondary reviewers. However, the APCs do nominate 5-10 potential new PC members to invite each year with the goal of covering the necessary expertise their area requires. - -This brings us to the somewhat fraught topic of who gets on the program committee. First of all, not everyone who wants to be on the committee is invited—serving on the PC is a privilege—and not everyone who is invited accepts. People decline for many reasons: other significant service commitments, general reviewer fatigue, or various personal and family reasons. In 2023, a total of 263 people were invited, with 214 accepting; a yield of approximately 80%. This year, with our plan to increase the load from 6 to 8 papers per PC member, the PC will shrink even if we anticipate a growth in submissions: we will invite around 180 people, which—if we hope for the same yield as last year—will yield us around 150 members in the final PC. - -The vast majority—two thirds—of who gets invited to the PC are those that stay on from last year. The term to serve on the VIS PC is three years followed by a break of at least one year, and most people will serve this entire term unless they (a) voluntarily withdraw, (b) take on significant service commitments (such as being asked to serve as APC or OPC), or (c) are removed from the PC because they do not perform well (such as not completing reviews in a timely manner, not following instructions, writing short or inappropriate reviews, etc). Assuming an approximately even distribution of PC member terms, this means that, on average, a third of the committee will be honorably rotating off each year and will have to be replaced with new members. This year, of course, the replenishment will be slightly smaller because of the shrinking PC size, but there are still approximately 30 positions up for grabs (around 150 out of 214 people are continuing from last year). - -Why would you want to serve on the PC in the first place? The answers are many and vary from person to person. It can be exciting to "move up" in the hierarchy of scientific service to get more responsibility and insight into the paper review process. In fact, many recruitment and promotion processes reward service to your own community at a level consistent with your career stage. Some people are simply altruistic and want to pay back the service they have benefited from during their career. The experience can also help you become a better researcher by better knowing what reviewers tend to like and dislike in a paper. And there is also an element of shared governance here: if you are a regular contributor to the field, you should also have some part in shaping its future. - -All PC members are selected from the overall reviewer pool based on being active and knowledgeable in the field (by regularly publishing papers at the conference), demonstrating their promptness and reliability (either as an external reviewer or by serving on earlier VIS PCs or other conference PCs), and conducting themselves with integrity (maintaining confidentiality and writing fair and balanced reviews in a timely manner). To serve on the VIS PC you are require to have completed your Ph.D. For an early-career researcher (ECR) with no prior PC experience, it can be somewhat daunting to fulfill all of these requirements and be selected out of what may seem like a sea of ECRs, but one of the jobs of the OPCs and APCs is to keep an eye on all potential new PC members and invite them to the committee when they are ready. Our goal is that everyone who contributes regularly to the conference sooner or later be given the chance to serve on the PC; in fact, you could almost see it as an obligation that you have towards the conference for all of the work that has gone into reviewing your own past submissions. - -If "sooner" is quickly becoming "later" for you, there are a couple of things that you can do. One way is to put forward your name in the annual call for volunteers. This year's [call](https://twitter.com/ieeevis/status/1737149239107506604) expired already on January 5, 2024, so the window is closed for VIS 2024, but keep an eye out for the call next year sometime around December. Another way to get noticed is to volunteer as an external reviewer for the conference itself; instructions [here](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/info/call-participation/review-instructions#external-reviewing-instructions). Volunteer to review a couple of papers, and if you get an invitation, do your best to write a high-quality, fair, and balanced review in a timely manner. Good service always begets more service. - -At the time of writing (mid January 2024), our APCs are mulling over their nominations to the PC, after which we will be forming the final committee and sending out invitations. If you get invited for the first time, congratulations! And if you're re-invited after serving in the past, welcome back! diff --git a/_posts/2024-01-23-vis-2024-VEC-blog.md b/_posts/2024-01-23-vis-2024-VEC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index 9d4b6d819..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-01-23-vis-2024-VEC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,37 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: 'The Wicked Problem of Conference Formats: Considerations for the Future of Hybrid VIS Conference Experiences' -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Executive Committee -author_contact: vec@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-vis-2024-VEC-blog-conference-format ---- - -Conferences have long been the lifeblood of academia especially in computer science and related fields, providing a platform for researchers, professionals, and enthusiasts to share knowledge, network, and foster collaboration. - -Conferences in computer science and HCI have evolved from localized, discipline-centric events to global, diverse platforms fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, ethical considerations, and rapid technological dissemination. They serve as key drivers of innovation and knowledge exchange in these dynamic and rapidly evolving fields. - -However, as the landscape of the academic world evolves, so does the challenge of determining the best format for conferences. [The VIS Executive Committee (VEC)](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/info/committees/vis-executive-committee) is currently investigating the complexities of planning future VIS conferences, focusing on the extent to which the conference should assume a hybrid format, offering positive experiences for both in-person and remote attendees. - -Wicked problems, a term coined by design theorists Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber in 1973, refer to complex, interconnected issues that lack clear solutions [1]. The decision-making process surrounding conference formats epitomizes this concept, as it involves several interconnected factors and stakeholders with various backgrounds, expectations and objectives, and uncertainties. - -The conventional format of conference where attendees from around the world convene in person at a single location has been the standard for decades, fostering face-to-face interactions, serendipitous networking, and a palpable sense of community. The relatively recent advent of low-latency multimodal communication technologies has paved the way for hybrid conferences, allowing remote attendees to experience the conference at the same time as those attending the event in person. - -Conventional, in-person conferences offer a unique and immersive experience. However, they certainly have drawbacks [2], including, but not limited to, the travel visa restrictions, the environmental impact of travel, venue accessibility barriers, and the risk of spreading communicable diseases. - -A hybrid conference format for VIS has the potential to **broaden participation and grow our community, reduce our environmental impact, and accommodate the diverse needs of attendees**. On the flip side, creating an engaging virtual experience remains challenging despite advances in communication technology; a hybrid format may never foster the energy of a conventional in-person gathering. Moreover, a functional hybrid conference imposes additional burdens on organizers, with added logistical complexities and their associated costs and manpower. As we navigate the wicked problem of conference formats, acknowledging the complexity and interconnectedness of the factors is crucial. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, striking a balance between the benefits of in-person engagement and the inclusivity of virtual participation might hold the key. - -In response to the evolving landscape of conference experiences, the VEC is in the process of envisioning the future of the VIS conference, particularly as we receive bids for VIS in the latter half of this decade. As part of this initiative, we, in collaboration with members of the [IEEE Visualization and Computer Graphics Technical Community Executive Committee (VGTC ExCom)](https://tc.computer.org/vgtc/about-us/executive-committee/) are soliciting opinions and ideas from the VGTC conference communities (which includes VIS) by means of a survey. This brief [**10 minute survey**](https://forms.gle/LK8kBmLownQiZzrs8) aims to take the pulse of the community, which we will use to understand conference attendance patterns and preferences, to determine the sentiment toward potential hybrid experiences, and to collect ideas. Once data is collected, we will summarize our findings in a future blog post in this series. - -In addition to surveying the community and speaking to those who contributed to discussions of conference formats at the most recent VIS Town Hall in Melbourne, we have also been analyzing the past several years of VIS conference attendance data, which we will summarize in the next blog post in this series. Finally, we will use our findings to update the instructions for submitting bids to host future VIS conferences. - -Do you have your own vision for the format of the VIS conference that you would like to share? Get in touch with us directly at [mbrehmer@tableau.com]() or [nmahyar@cs.umass.edu ](). In the meantime, please take to our survey here: - -[https://forms.gle/LK8kBmLownQiZzrs8]() - -References: - -1. Rittel, Horst WJ, and Melvin M. Webber. "Dilemmas in a general theory of planning." Policy sciences 4, no. 2 (1973): 155-169. - -2. Lee-Robbins, E., & McNutt, A. (2023). Only YOU Can Make IEEE VIS Environmentally Sustainable. Proceedings of altVIS 2023. diff --git a/_posts/2024-02-08-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md b/_posts/2024-02-08-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index 1305cd80a..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-02-08-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,32 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: The Road to VIS 2024 - On Replication Studies -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Overall Paper Chairs -author_contact: opc@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-replication ---- - -The reproducibility and replicability of research is a cornerstone of the scientific method (National Academies 2019). In order for research results—at least of a quantitative nature—to be valid, it must be sufficiently well-described so that it is replicable by an independent team of researchers (Jasny et al. 2011). Accordingly, replication studies—a re-evaluation, re-confirmation, or extension of an original study (Quadri and Rosen 2019)—are an important scientific activity in the sciences at large. It is the failure of many seminal scientific results to be reproduced that has led to the so-called "replication crisis" in fields such as psychology and medicine (Ioannidis 2005), opening the door for a "credibility revolution" (Vazire 2018). While those fields were the initial flashpoints for this crisis, the understanding that the underlying methodological issues affect a broad swath of the natural and social sciences is increasingly widespread (Baker 2016). - -In other words, there are clear benefits for data visualization to take heed of these developments in other fields and embark on a robust replication effort of older results. In fact, Haroz and Kosara (2018) suggest that we could succeed in "skipping the replication crisis in visualization" altogether by addressing common threats to validity in visualization papers; their paper outlines several solutions. - -Despite these benefits, replication is still relatively rare in the human-computer interaction field in general (Greenberg and Buxton 2008), and data visualization in particular (Quadri and Rosen 2019). A study by Hornbæk et al. (2014) showed that a mere 3% of a total of 891 papers from four HCI publication venues were reinvestigations to confirm, expand, or generalize older results, and many of these were not originally intended as replication studies. Similarly, while Quadri and Rosen (2019) note that authors are increasingly including experimental data with their papers to encourage replication and point to several existing replication efforts, such as the RepliCHI and EuroRVVV3 (EuroVis Workshop on Reproducibility, Verification, and Validation in Visualization) workshops, they echo the sentiment that replication studies are still too rare in the visualization and HCI fields. - -Part of the reason may be that our field is very focused on novelty. Another may be that some HCI results are qualitative in nature and not intended to be replicable. Many years ago, Greenberg and Buxton (2008) noted that for the HCI field "the problem is that replications are not highly valued", that replication papers "are difficult to publish", and "are rarely considered a strong result." Although this attitude has historically been equally true for the visualization field, times are changing. Recently, visualization researchers have highlighted many successful strategies for publishing replication studies: for example, rather than pursuing strict direct replication, it has been fruitful to frame partial or conceptual replications as a platform that can be built upon to yield novel contributions through expanding the scope or findings of the evaluation, or to specialize the contribution to apply the results to a specific domain (Quadri and Rosen 2019). - -VIS 2024 OPCs feel that publishing replication studies of many kinds will be valuable for the visualization field. We encourage the VIS community to make a long-term and deliberate effort to both perform replication activities and to value them as valid contributions to the field. For this year, with the approval of the VIS Steering Committee (VSC), we will do this by both publishing this blog post as well as giving explicit instructions to reviewers on how to review replication studies. Next year, we also plan to discuss the value of replication studies in the call for papers. - -Of course, changing the collective minds of the entire reviewer pool can take time and there is no doubt risk involved in being a guinea pig for methodological innovation. Nevertheless, we hope to see some brave authors submitting replication studies to VIS this year, and we wish those authors the best of luck! - -## References -- Monya Baker. (2016) [1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility](https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a). Nature (News Feature), 533(7604):452–454 -- Saul Greenberg, Bill Buxton. (2008) [Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful (Some of the Time)](https://www.billbuxton.com/usabilityHarmful.pdf). In Proc. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) 2008, pp. 111–120 -- Kasper Hornbæk, Søren S. Sander, Javier Bargas-Avila, Jakob Grue Simonsen. (2014) [Is Once Enough? On the Extent and Content of Replications in Human-Computer Interaction](https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2556288.2557004). In Proc. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) 2014, pp. 3523–3532 -- John P. A. Ioannidis. (2005) [Why most published research findings are false](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004085). PLOS Medicine. 2(8):e124. -- Barbara R. Jasny, Gilbert Chin, Lisa Chong, Sacha Vignieri. (2011) [Again, and Again, and Again…](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.334.6060.1225). Science 334(6060):1225–1225 -- Robert Kosara, Steve Haroz. (2018) [Skipping the Replication Crisis in Visualization: Threats to Study Validity and How to Address Them: Position Paper](https://media.eagereyes.org/papers/2018/Kosara-BELIV-2018.pdf) . In Proc. IEEE VIS Workshop on Evaluation and Beyond - Methodological Approaches for Visualization (BELIV) 2018, pp. 102–107 -- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019) [Reproducibility and Replicability in Science](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547537/). Washington, D.C., USA. -- Ghulam Jilani Quadri, Paul Rosen. (2019) [You Can’t Publish Replication Studies (and How to Anyways)](https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.08893). In Proc. IEEE VIS Workshop on Vis X Vision, 2019. arXiv:1908.08893 -- Simine Vazire. (2018). [Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress](https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/2yphf) . Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(4), 411-417 diff --git a/_posts/2024-02-11-vis-2024-GC-blog.md b/_posts/2024-02-11-vis-2024-GC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index 3ffd69df4..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-02-11-vis-2024-GC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,36 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: 'Conference Format for IEEE VIS 2024' -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 General Chairs -author_contact: general_chair@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-conference-format ---- - - -With deadlines quickly approaching, you may be curious about the format of IEEE VIS 2024. VIS 2024 will be a hybrid event, but as we all know, that can mean many different things. As we considered possible formats, we tried to balance the desire to maximize the experience for in-person participants while weighing the importance of connecting to remote participants in our community. We also considered the cost, both dollars and work hours (we are all volunteers, after all), associated with the additional needs of a hybrid conference. Finally, we wanted to test a model that could be sustainable for future VIS conferences, which have different space and financial constraints than our own. - -Our determination was that different aspects of the conference had differing needs: some portions would be zoom-hybrid, some would be streamed, some would be in-person only, and finally, some would be primarily virtual. - -**Full and short papers: Full and short papers will be split into in-person presenter-only and virtual presenter-only sessions.** - - In-person presenter-only sessions will be streamed, potentially with a time-delay. Q&A will be limited to in-person attendees. - - Virtual presenter-only sessions will be hosted on Zoom, with Q&A available to all participants (remote and in-person). In addition to being streamed, each virtual session that occurs during normal conference hours will be played back in a room at the in-person conference. - - *>> Authors of full and short papers will be required to make a commitment to the in-person or virtual track during their second-round submissions. <<* - -**Workshops, panels, and other associated events:** Workshops, panels, and other associated events will be equipped with Zoom-hybrid capabilities at the conference. However, it will be up to the discretion of the organizers of each event to determine how these capabilities will be utilized. - -**Plenary Sessions:** All plenary sessions, including the keynote, capstone, best papers, etc., will be streamed this year, potentially with a time-delay. As such, Q&A will be limited to in-person participants. - -**Posters, VISAP, meetups, etc.:** The conference will support these events in-person only. - -**Finally, a note about registration**—*Each full and short paper accepted at IEEE VIS 2024 will be required to be presented by one of the authors, either in-person or virtually. All presenters are required to register as a speaker, irrespective of their mode of presentation. Additionally, diversity and inclusivity scholarships will be available to support the participation of speakers with financial needs.* - -There remain many details to be worked out, and we will continue to communicate those details as they become available. The general chairs remain open to your feedback and questions. We look forward to seeing you, in-person or virtually, at IEEE VIS 2024! - -IEEE VIS 2024 General Chairs - Paul Rosen - Kristi Potter - Remco Chang - diff --git a/_posts/2024-02-27-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md b/_posts/2024-02-27-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index 6c3e7eb97..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-02-27-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,20 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: The Road to VIS 2024 - The Cost of Submission -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Overall Paper Chairs -author_contact: opc@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-cost-of-submission ---- -In this edition of the Road to VIS 2024, we want to tackle the topic of reviewing and reviewer fatigue. We want to shed light on the invisible labor that our hard-working reviewers do for every paper submitted to the conference. Our goal is to enlighten and encourage, not to reproach. But yes, if this post motivates you to go to [PCS](https://new.precisionconference.com/user/login?next=https%3A//new.precisionconference.com/review_volunteering) right now and volunteer to review papers for VIS 2024, so much the better. (We mean it—do it now!) - -The truth of the matter is that every paper you submit to IEEE VIS comes at a cost: the unpaid labor of at least three (four in earlier years) reviewers who have volunteered to evaluate your work. In addition, work is done by the Area Papers Chairs (APCs) who spend time finding suitable primary and secondary reviewers to handle your submission, and then tries to make a decision about your paper based on the reviews, not to mention us Overall Paper Chairs (OPCs) who facilitate this accept/reject decision-making process at a global level. Taken together, there are probably dozens of hours invested in each paper you submit. - -This is all to say that while it may seem like submitting a paper is a little like playing the lottery for free—after all, you don't have to pay anything to enter—there is a very real cost in human labor for every paper submitted to the conference. At the same time, many of us may admit to at one point or another saying something along the lines of "let's submit this paper even if it's not entirely ready—at least we'll get good feedback." Yes, there is often good feedback for IEEE VIS—our reviews tend to be of remarkably high quality—but the primary goal is to select high-quality papers with the potential for being accepted and nurture them to that point. An additional outcome of the review process is to provide good feedback to authors on the strengths and weaknesses of the work that is rejected, but you should not treat the IEEE VIS review process as a free editing or research critique service. Of course, it's difficult to predict which papers will shine and which will be deemed premature—many of us have been surprised by our favorites being rejected and our long-shots accepted, so we don't wish to discourage you from submitting work that you personally consider above the bar for publication! Rather, this post is intended to raise awareness that if we treat all of these volunteer efforts as unpaid labor that we can leverage for our own good, the system may not be sustainable. - -Since reviewing is not free, it is important that authors devote time to it to keep the scales balanced. Given that three reviewers handle each paper you submit, you and your co-authors should plan to review at least three other papers in return (split between all co-authors). If you do not review your share, you are essentially benefiting from other people's labor without contributing your own. This approach is not equitable, and in the long run it could lead to the collapse of the peer review system. - -Some conferences are already seeing indications that the system is beginning to fail, particularly since the one-two punch that started with the pandemic, and continues to this day: most venues experienced a significant increase in submissions, even as more review requests were declined. VIS has not been spared—in past years, we heard tales of PC members having to ask half a dozen or more potential external reviewers before someone finally accepted the request to review a specific paper. Reviewer fatigue is real, and the only antidote is that every author pulls their own weight. ACM CHI, for example, now requires that all submissions list at least three co-authors who commit to review papers in return. With VIS, we are taking the slightly more gentle approach of strongly encouraging this level of commitment, although not yet formally requiring it. - -As always in life, there are exceptions to the hard and fast rule of reviewing at least as many papers as your own paper receives. For example, junior students are often exempted from reviewing, mainly because they don't possess the necessary experience and judgment to take on this task. Even senior authors may be excused if they have significant service commitments elsewhere. For example, none of the OPCs and APCs this year will be reviewing VIS papers because our time is already committed. Still, our philosophy is that if you take the time to author research for a conference, you should also make time to review for that conference. Please keep this principle in mind as external review requests start to appear in early April. diff --git a/_posts/2024-03-05-vis-2024-VEC-blog.md b/_posts/2024-03-05-vis-2024-VEC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index b8da3b318..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-03-05-vis-2024-VEC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,60 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: 'VIS Attendance (2018 - 23) and Implications for Future Conference and Satellite Locations' -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Executive Committee -author_contact: vec@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-VEC-blog-attendance ---- - -In the [previous post](vis-2024-vis-2024-VEC-blog-conference-format) by the [The VIS Executive Committee (VEC)](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/info/committees/vis-executive-committee), we outlined our initiative to investigate the wicked problem of planning future VIS conferences, focusing on the extent to which the conference should assume a hybrid format or consider other alternative formats to broaden participation, while ensuring positive experiences for both in-person and remote attendees. - -We now continue this initiative with an overview of VIS attendance patterns between 2018 and 2023. This period is particularly interesting given the variation in location / time zone and format of VIS during this time: - -- 2018: **Berlin** (in person, GMT+1) -- 2019: **Vancouver** (in person, GMT-8) -- 2020: **Salt Lake City** (virtual, in GMT-7) -- 2021: **New Orleans** (virtual, in GMT-6, with several in-person [satellite events](https://ieeevis.org/year/2021/info/satellite) around the world) -- 2022: **Oklahoma City** (synchronous hybrid, GMT-6) -- 2023: **Melbourne** (in person, GMT+11) - - For each year listed above, we collected anonymized registration data aggregated by world region and country. For the synchronous hybrid conference of 2022, we also aggregated the registrations by registration format (in-person or virtual). We acknowledge that when an attendee registers for VIS, their response to the location fields in the registration form may not necessarily represent their country of origin, but rather where they are currently employed or studying. Furthermore, there is no way of verifying if the self-reported country for a person who registered to attend VIS virtually between 2020 and 2022 was the country that they were physically in during the conference. Lastly, we do not currently have any data regarding the level of engagement for virtual attendees beyond registration. - - Caveats aside, we report on attendance for the benefit of those considering to make a bid to host VIS in the coming years, VIS organizing committee members planning and scheduling virtual or hybrid program content, as well as for those inclined to host satellite events, such as [the eight events that coincided with VIS 2021](https://ieeevis.org/year/2021/info/satellite) or the asynchronous [VIS 2023 satellite event in France](https://www.aviz.fr/Events/Previs2023). - -### Overall VIS Registration Numbers - -VIS 2018 in Berlin remains to be largest VIS conference to date in terms of in-person attendee count (over 1,200), while VIS 2020 had the highest number of virtual registrations (nearly 6,000). We also saw nearly 3,700 virtual registrations in 2021 and nearly 700 in 2022 (the latter also had over 600 in-person attendees). Most recently, VIS 2023 attracted over 800 in-person attendees. - -![]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-02-VEC/vis-attendees.png' | relative_url }}) - -### VIS Attendance by Region - -Irrespective of the means of attendance (in-person / virtual), we saw some notable differences in terms of the proportion of attendees from different world regions (◼︎ = Europe; ◼︎ = Americas; ◼︎ = Asia; ◼︎ = Oceania; ◼︎ = Africa). - -![]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-02-VEC/vis-proportions.png' | relative_url }}) - -When VIS was in Germany (2018), a little over half of the attendees were based in Europe and made the short trip to Berlin; about a third flew in from North America, just over 10% flew in from Asia, and 1% traveled from somewhere else. The next year (Vancouver), the relative proportions of Europeans and North Americans inverted. Notably, over the next three years, the relative proportions of attendees from North America, Europe, and Asia remained somewhat stable. While the VIS program was virtual in 2020 - 2021 and hybrid in 2022, recall that each program was scheduled in time zone that was convenient for those in North America. Finally, at the most recent VIS conference in Melbourne, which had no virtual attendance option, we saw a fairly even split in terms of who made the trip to Australia: about 30% flew in from North America, 26% came from Asia, 24% were based in Oceania, and 19% made the long trip from Europe. - -### Virtual VIS Attendance - -A couple of questions arise from our virtual registration numbers: (1) Did VIS have a broader geographic reach during the virtual-only years (2020-21)?; and (2) Who opted to attend the hybrid VIS 2022 conference virtually? - -![]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-02-VEC/virtual-attendees-all.png' | relative_url }}) - -Among the virtual registrations, the majority were from those based in world regions and countries already well-represented at VIS: North America, Western and Northern Europe, and East Asia. However, we made special note of the countries that were not represented among in-person registrations between 2018 and 2023. Countries in Southern and Southeast Asia stand out in this pack, with a total of over 100 registrations between 2020 and 2022. About half as many registrations over this period were from those based in Eastern and Southern Europe. Finally, we saw a relatively small number of registrations from Africa and the Americas outside of North America. - -![]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-02-VEC/virtual-attendees-other.png' | relative_url }}) - -Looking at **VIS 2022** in particular, a little over 40% of the nearly 700 virtual registrations were from those based in the Americas, while a little under 30% were based in Asia, and just over a quarter were based in Europe. Across all of these registrations, only a couple dozen (~3%) were from those based in countries that had no in-person representation across the years surveyed. - -### Implications - -Aside from the global COVID-19 pandemic that prevented international in-person gatherings in 2020 and 2021, the registration data by itself doesn't tell us why participants opted to attend virtually in 2022. Nor does it tell us which factors matter to prospective VIS attendees mulling over whether to attend in person or virtually; this is the focus of our the [**survey**](https://forms.gle/LK8kBmLownQiZzrs8) announced in our [earlier post](vis-2024-vis-2024-VEC-blog-conference-format), and we will present the results of this survey in a future post. However, the registration data does suggest that there is not a large difference in terms of global representation between in-person and virtual attendees. - -While attending a regional **satellite event** may not be accessible or appealing to those who decide against traveling in person to the main event, the virtual registration numbers suggest that there may be a large enough contingent of people in Europe and East Asia to merit satellite events in those locales when VIS takes place in North America. There may even be a critical mass of people in South Asia and Southeast Asia willing to attend such a regional event. - -While just over 40% of the virtual registrations for VIS 2022 were from those based in the Americas, the synchronous virtual conference experience for the remaining ~60% was likely to occur at an inconvenient time of day. To accommodate virtual attendees of future VIS conferences, organizers should consider the benefits and trade-offs of **asynchronous** or **partially-synchronous virtual attendee experiences**. For example, let's imagine a future VIS conference hosted somewhere in North America. Presentations delivered by in-person attendees could be recorded during the day and uploaded in the evening, at which point they could be viewed asynchronously by remote attendees. Early the following morning, those whose talks were recorded could join a moderated virtual Q&A session with remote attendees in Europe and Africa, and later that day, they could join a second moderated virtual Q&A session with remote attendees in Asia and Oceania. - -At [VIS 2024](vis-2024-conference-format) in Florida, the general chairs have already determined that paper presentation sessions will be split between those delivered by in-person attendees and those delivered by remote virtual attendees. Should this split continue in future VIS conferences, the virtual registration demographics suggest that these virtual-only sessions be scheduled in the early morning and late afternoon / early evening, so as to respect the typical working hours of those attending from around the world. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/_posts/2024-03-12-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md b/_posts/2024-03-12-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index 50ae43cef..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-03-12-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,30 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: The Road to VIS 2024 - Handling Conflicts -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Overall Paper Chairs -author_contact: opc@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-handling-conflicts ---- -We’re entering March and the game is heating up! With less than three weeks to go for the VIS 2024 full papers deadline, it is time that we OPCs start turning to critical matters. One of those is conflicts of interest (COIs). -In the last installment, we talked about the importance of volunteering to review papers for the conferences to which you submit papers. However, it is equally vital not only that you are reviewing papers, but that you don’t review papers for which you have a conflict. - -What is a conflict of interest? COIs arise because of relationships you have with an author or their institution that could affect your judgment of the work or the community’s perception of your judgment. Note the last point. You may be a person of exceptional integrity that could objectively handle reviewing even your own sibling’s work fairly and with no special treatment, but reviewing your own sibling’s paper would look bad for everyone else. One of the pillars of scientific peer review is that it is objective, and that this objectivity can be confirmed by everyone. -Conflicts arise in many ways and have varying durations; see the IEEE VGTC reviewer ethics guide for all the details. Family relationships are obviously conflicts with no expiration, but those are relatively rare and quite straightforward. Another conflict is the academic equivalent of a family relationship: your Ph.D. and postdoc advisor, or anyone who has had a close mentorship role for you, are “forever conflicts”. The same is true in the other direction, i.e. for your advisees. Your close relationship means that neither of you can be expected to (or perceived to) treat each other objectively. The same can be said about close personal friendships (or, for that matter, personal animosities, which hopefully are rare). - -Most other conflicts have a time expiration, and for IEEE and VIS, this expiration is three years. In other words, once a relationship has ended (e.g. collaboration on the same paper), you can consider the conflict gone after three years. - -The rule of thumb is the same for conflicts with an expiration as those with none: is there a relationship that would (or would be perceived to) affect your ability to treat a person objectively? Conflicts with an expiration include sharing an affiliation, co-authorship on published work, working on the same research project or grant, or similar. Service commitments are special: you are obviously not conflicted if you serve on the same program committee, because then basically everyone in the community would be conflicted with each other. In general, even if you work with somebody closely on a small committee over an extended period of time, conflicts do not automatically arise; however, if you become sufficiently close to somebody that it feels like a conflict, then do declare it. Use your best judgment here. - -As an aside, us OPCs are selected not to be conflicted with each other because we need to be able to handle each other’s submissions and conflicted submissions. - -If you have a conflict with a paper, you should not be involved in any formal publication decisions regarding it. For external reviewers, this means not reviewing papers you are in conflict with. For PC members, this also means not reviewing such papers, and informing the papers chairs immediately if you are assigned to such a paper. For APCs at VIS, this means that if both APCs are in conflict, the conflicted paper will be moved to a different area to avoid the conflict. If just one APC is in conflict, one of the OPCs will step into their place. For OPCs, there is no such option, so in these situations, the conflicted chair will have to recuse themselves from any decisions involving the conflicted paper. Practically speaking, this will mean not participating in the Zoom call when discussing it. The PCS submission system provides good support for handling conflicts, by ensuring that papers chairs cannot see information about such papers. - -Here’s the final question we want to cover: how do we detect these conflicts in the first place? This is where you come in. If you are a reviewer for VIS 2024 (either as a PC member or as an external reviewer), it is your responsibility to ensure that your affiliation is correct and that your conflicts have been updated in PCS (the submission system). Because VIS allows for double-blind submissions, we need PCS to flag situations when there is a conflict even if you as a reviewer don’t see the author names. Even for single-blind submissions, where the author names are visible to you, correct affiliations and declared conflicts will minimize situations where you get assigned a paper you really shouldn’t review, and then we all have to go through the hassle of getting the paper reassigned to another reviewer. - -Many early-career researchers in the community will have recently changed affiliations, for example Ph.D. students who have graduated and moved on to new institutions. Please make sure you have updated PCS with your new primary affiliation, and also keep your old institution listed as your secondary affiliation for 3 years—the three-year rule applies here as well. Conversely, once those 3 years are up, please remove that institution from your own affiliation list. If you are still actively collaborating with people there, that should be handled through the usual conflicts identification mechanisms in PCS, not through your affiliation. - -Speaking of PCS and conflicts: the good news is that PCS will now help accelerate the process of declaring your conflicts by checking against all recent submissions in its database. The bad news is that it's sometimes over-enthusiastic: it uses a 4-year window rather than a 3-year window, and includes a few tracks where we do not consider conflicts to occur (such as shared participation in a panel or tutorial). So do take a close look at the automatic inferrals, in addition to entering information about any other conflicts such as new collaborations where you have not yet submitted papers together as co-authors. - -With all this information fresh in your mind, please take a moment to go into PCS and make sure your affiliation is up to date. (If you're on the VIS PC, you will also be asked to update your conflicts after the abstracts submission deadline.) Providing all this information already now will make everybody's life easier. diff --git a/_posts/2024-04-05-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md b/_posts/2024-04-05-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index 2cd6f9b9a..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-04-05-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,20 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: The Road to VIS 2024 - Submissions by the numbers -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Overall Paper Chairs -author_contact: opc@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-numbers ---- -March 31 has come and gone, which means that the IEEE VIS 2024 full papers deadline has passed. This is when us OPCs and APCs are starting our work, and when the PC and eventually the entire reviewer community will get involved. What is the task? Why, reviewing all those papers that were submitted to the annual deadline, of course! In this brief post, we will give some numbers about the submissions and then outline the next steps in the process. - -A total of 680 abstracts were submitted for the abstract deadline on March 21. Out of those, 557 full papers were eventually submitted, a conversion rate of 82%. The number of submissions is up; in 2023, the conference saw 539 submissions out of 635 abstracts (85% conversion), and in 2022, there were 460 out of 560 abstracts (82% conversion). This means submissions increased by 3.53% from last year, and 21% from 2022. This is a fairly small increase compared to the 17% increase from 2022 to 2023. However, the conversion rate of abstract to full paper is consistent. - -All APCs pull a very high load and we are grateful for their efforts. Still, some areas received more submissions than others. For the specific areas, Applications (Area 2)—not surprisingly—received the most number of submissions: 154. We wish Tatiana von Landesberger (University of Cologne, Germany) and Jiawan Zhang (Tianjin University) all the best with handling all these submissions! Second came Theoretical & Empirical (Area 1) with 112 submissions. This area is spearheaded by APCs Adam Perer (Carnegie Mellon University) and Matthew Kay (Northwestern University). This is narrowly followed by Representations & Interaction (Area 4) with 110 submissions, and stable hands Daniel Keefe (University of Minnesota) and Pierre Dragicevic (Inria Bordeaux) at the helm. Analytics & Decisions (Area 6) APCs Wenwen Dou (University of North Carolina at Charlotte) and Steffen Koch (University of Stuttgart) are handling 77 submissions. Data Transformations (Area 5) has 53 submissions, and is managed by Filip Sadlo (Heidelberg University) and Ivan Viola (King Abdullah University of Science and Technology). Finally, weighing in at 51 submissions is the Systems & Rendering area (Area 3) with Chaoli Wang (University of Notre Dame) and Christoph Garth (University of Kaiserslautern-Landau) at the wheel. Thanks all to these APCs who make our jobs as OPCs possible! - -Supporting these 12 APCs is a program committee of 143 hard-working PC members who can expect to handle somewhere between 6 to 8 papers each (split between the role as primary or secondary reviewer). This PC, incidentally, was recruited earlier this spring from a total of 181 invitations. If you are thinking about serving on the VIS program committee in the future, we hope you look out for our annual PC volunteering deadline sometime next fall! We are deeply grateful to these PC members as well as the external reviewers they will be inviting to review these submissions in the weeks to come. - -From this point onwards, the VIS review process will proceed with the PC member assignments, which will be released before April 8. After that point, secondary reviewers will look for an external reviewer for each submission. Remember that this year, there is only one external reviewer assigned to each paper. The initial batch of external review invitations will be released on April 11. The external reviews will be due on May 8. The reviews from primary and secondary PC members are due at the same time. Then, discussion will take place between all reviewers on the paper, and the primaries have until May 15 write their summary review. First-round notifications are expected to be released on June 6. - -We OPCs are quite excited about all this and are eager to tackle this hard but important work. During our first skim of the submissions, we have seen some very impressive, creative, and potentially important papers. Thanks for submitting to VIS 2024, and we wish you the very best of outcomes for your hard work! diff --git a/_posts/2024-05-09-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md b/_posts/2024-05-09-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index bc87f926c..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-05-09-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,22 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: The Road to VIS 2024 - From Reviews to Decisions -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Overall Paper Chairs -author_contact: opc@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-decisions ---- -We get it—waiting is hard. As we move into May, the early June notification date for the outcomes of your submissions seems no closer. Also, it could be that the decision-making process at IEEE VIS 2024 can appear opaque from the submitting authors' viewpoint. Well, wonder no more: in this blog post, the next installment in our "Road to VIS 2024" series, we will describe what actually goes into these decisions on which papers get accepted or rejected to VIS 2024. Maybe it will not make June come sooner, but we hope that it at least will make understanding the decision-making process easier. - -Let's start with recent history. All VIS submissions were due on March 31, a date that has—save for the pandemic year of 2020 when authors were given an extra month—been constant across the decades for the IEEE visualization conferences. Once the submission deadline passed, we, the OPCs, closed the submission system, discarded incomplete submissions, and made an initial assignment of program committee (PC) members to each paper. We then handed these assignments over to the APCs on April 1—the very next day. The APCs had until April 4 to fine-tune the assignments, which were released to the PC members on April 5. - -If you are a reviewer for IEEE VIS 2024—and [we hope that you are](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-cost-of-submission)—you have experienced the rest of this process firsthand. From April 5 to April 11, the PC members recruited one external reviewer for the papers for which they served as secondary. During this period, we also managed numerous paper swaps necessitated by conflicts of interest that were initially overlooked. On April 11, we sent out all review invitations in a single batch. This strategy allows external reviewers to select assignments they feel most qualified for and avoids penalizing PC members who were unable to recruit reviewers immediately. After the review request batch, there followed some hilarity as PC members scrambled—with varying degrees of success—to find replacements for review requests that were declined in the first round. This year, the period of hilarity (or tragedy, as it were) lasted until nary a week before the reviewing deadline. - -The reviewing deadline on May 8 is followed by a week of discussions. During this time, all reviewers (primary, secondary, and one external) can see each other's reviews and discuss their opinions of the submissions. Reviewers are encouraged to remain open to adjusting their evaluations based on the discussion, whether it raises new positives or negatives. At the end of the discussion period, the primary reviewer synthesizes all feedback into a summary review. - -At this point, the APCs take over. Their job is now to triage the papers under their care to make preliminary recommendations and to identify the borderline cases that need deeper deliberation. This step often involves reading summaries, discussions, full reviews, and, in complex situations, the papers themselves. Each area enjoys considerable autonomy in discussing and determining the outcomes of the papers they manage. The APCs are also on the lookout for inappropriate, inadequate, or insufficiently clear reviews so that they can follow up with those reviewers to improve or clarify any problematic reviews. In some cases, they may even engage an entirely new reviewer to perform a "crash" emergency review at short notice. Once finished with their pass, the APCs hand off their recommendations to the OPCs, who discuss with each area, check that the decisions—especially the borderline ones—are sufficiently documented, and ensure that accept/reject criteria are applied consistently across areas. - -The final approval before notifications are dispatched is handled by IEEE TVCG. As most visualization community members know, papers accepted to the annual IEEE VIS conference are published in a special issue of the IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics journal. The TVCG Editor-in-Chief, Han-Wei Shen, and his editorial board have the final say on what gets accepted to appear in the journal. For the OPCs and APCs, this means that each accept and reject decision must be sufficiently documented so that the rationale is clear and founded on scientific principles. This rationale will later be used to verify that the second-round version of each conditionally accepted paper has addressed reviewer concerns—but that's a story for another post. - -On June 6, the fruits of our reviewers' collective labor will be revealed. We wish you the best of luck for your submissions; may the odds be ever in your favor! diff --git a/_posts/2024-06-12-vis-2024-VEC-blog.md b/_posts/2024-06-12-vis-2024-VEC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index 078454172..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-06-12-vis-2024-VEC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,58 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: 'VIS Community Opinions on Hybrid Event Formats' -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Executive Committee -author_contact: vec@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-VEC-survey-results ---- - -In a [post](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/blog/vis-2024-vis-2024-VEC-blog-conference-format) by the [VIS Executive Committee (VEC)](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/info/committees/vis-executive-committee) earlier this year, we introduced our initiative to determine the extent to which VIS should assume a hybrid format, so as to broaden participation while ensuring positive experiences for both in-person and remote attendees. As part of this initiative, we partnered with members of the [IEEE Visualization and Computer Graphics Technical Community Executive Committee (VGTC ExCom)](https://tc.computer.org/vgtc/about-us/executive-committee/) to conduct an online survey to take the pulse of the community, to collect data regarding conference attendance patterns and preferences, to determine the sentiment toward potential hybrid experiences, and to collect ideas. In this post, we summarize the results of this survey. - -Since January, 192 people responded to our call to participate in the [survey](https://forms.gle/LHvnHiJVgfs2nbvX9), which we disseminated via community mailing lists and social media. 138 respondents selected VIS as their primary VGTC conference; our analysis focused on this subset of responses. We believe that the VIS community is reflected in the survey responses, which span the dimensions of world region, gender, level of education, age, affiliation, and VIS attendance history. However, some voices are either over- or under-represented when we compare the demographics of survey respondents to [VIS attendance data](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/blog/vis-2024-VEC-blog-attendance); for instance, VIS attendees from North America are slightly over-represented, while those from Oceania are under-represented. - -### Reflection on Prior Conference Experiences - -In the first half of the survey, we asked about recent conference experiences, including the motivations for attending either in person or virtually, as well as the barriers that prevent people from attending a conference in person. The results are shown in **Figure 1**. For each question, respondents could select up to three considerations, which included an ‘Other’ option that allowed them to specify their own. Highlights include: - -![]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-06-VEC/motivations.png' | relative_url }}) - -**Figure 1**: *Community responses to three questions from an online survey regarding IEEE VGTC conferences, filtered to the subset respondents who identified IEEE VIS as their primary VGTC conference (N = 138). For each question, respondents could select up to three considerations, which included an ‘Other’ option that allowed them to specify their own.* - - -- **Top three motivations to attend VIS in-person**: (1) networking, (2) present work, (3) attend paper presentations. -- **Top three barriers to attending VIS in-person**: (1) cost of travel and accommodation, (2) time availability, (3) paper not accepted. -- **Top three motivations to attend conferences virtually**: (1) no travel required, (2) no in-person attendance option offered, (3) affordability. - -The open-ended comments largely corroborate what we saw in the fixed-response questions, however we also noted a recurring desire for hybrid formats to ensure accessibility. Additionally, respondents indicated how environmental concerns also influence their attendance decisions, with some choosing not to fly or combining travel with personal time to mitigate environmental impact. Finally, several respondents mentioned significant personal safety and human rights concerns associated with potential conference locations. - -Next, we asked about respondents’ preferences and behaviors when attending conferences virtually. The majority of respondents reported consuming less than 50% of the conference program content, preferred livestreaming some of the content and watching the rest asynchronously. The majority preferred interacting with speakers via a basic chat interface, Slack or Discord, or a web application like sli.do. They preferred interacting with other attendees via Slack or Discord, a basic chat interface, or asynchronously via email. In the open-ended comments, we noted a particular appreciation for the Discord instance associated with VIS 2022, although the effectiveness of such a platform depends on activity levels. - -### Opinions on Future Conferences - -In the second half of the survey, we asked respondents for their opinions and preferences with respect to future conferences. In particular, we asked participants to either to agree or disagree with a series of statements regarding the specifics of possible hybrid conference arrangements (See **Figure 2**), which included statements about presentation video recorded before the conference, presenting at satellite events, and the integration of in-person and virtual presentations. - -![]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-06-VEC/opinions.png' | relative_url }}) - -**Figure 2**: *Percentage of survey responses (N = 138) that Disagree or Agree with the statements regarding future VIS conferences listed in the left column, along with the percentage of Neutral responses.* - -So what do respondents largely agree on? Most respondents (88%) want video recordings of in-person presentations and panels to be made available after the conference (7% opposed, 5% neutral). The majority (59%) agree that presentations by speakers who cannot attend in person should be broadcast at the in-person conference venue at a designated time and room (13% opposed, 28% neutral). Similarly, the majority (57%) agree that Q&A following presentations should accommodate in-person and virtual attendees to equal measure (24% opposed, 18% neutral). Finally, the majority of respondents (55%) agree that those who wish to host a future VIS conference must propose a virtual attendee experience (29% opposed, 16% neutral). The open-ended comments largely support these preferences, with calls for standardizing presentation formats across sessions and using familiar remote communication technology. - -There was no clear majority opinion for other questions that we posed, though if we consider the percentage of neutral responses, we should avoid requiring pre-recorded presentations from speakers who elect to present in-person, and we should not consider changing the annual cadence of an in-person VIS conference. - -Unsurprisingly, nearly half of the respondents said “it depends” when asked if they will opt to attend future VIS conferences remotely; less than 10% said they would attend virtually for most / all conferences that offered such a format, with about the same percentage saying they do not plan to attend future conferences virtually. The majority of respondents indicated that the virtual registration fee should be 25% or less than the full in-person registration fee. If attending virtually, the majority of respondents indicated that they would livestream keynote sessions but opt to watch paper talks asynchronously. This preference is also reflected in [CHI 2024 organizers’ decision not to provide a synchronous conference experience for remote attendees](https://chi2024.acm.org/2023/11/09/hybrid-experience-at-chi-2024/), or as they put it: *“Live is Synchronous, Remote is Asynchronous”*. - -### Opinions on Satellite Events - -Finally, relative to remote participation in general, we noted less enthusiasm or willingness to attend satellite conference events. The comments suggest that the quality of satellite events depends heavily on attendance and local organization strength, and that the attendance of a satellite event is contingent on the number and presence of local paper presenters. However, European satellite events are particularly attractive relative to others due to Europe’s developed rail travel network, particularly when the VIS conference takes place outside of Europe. - -### Panel at IEEE VIS 2024 on VIS Conference Futures: Community Opinions on Recent Experiences, Challenges, and Opportunities for Hybrid Event Formats - -We will host a hybrid panel dedicated to discussing the implications of the data summarized above, gathering together the diverse perspectives that will further contextualize and reflect the voices from our survey. Given the range of responses and the strong opinions that respondents voiced in the open-ended comments, we expect this to be a lively forum that will inform and inspire VIS community members and especially those in organizing committee roles (or who may undertake such roles in the coming years). This panel serves as a platform to address the complex and interconnected issues surrounding the future of VIS conferences, particularly with respect to those where community members have differing opinions, as well as to complement the perspectives that came across in the survey results. As we navigate the landscape of hybrid event formats, it is essential to gather diverse perspectives from the VIS community, to better inform decision makers in organizational roles so they they can ensure that VIS remains inclusive, engaging, and impactful. - -We will begin by briefly summarizing the VIS attendance data and survey results. Next, we will ask the panelists to remark upon their own vision for future VIS conferences, as well as their opinion on what is unique about hybrid experiences for VIS relative to other conferences. We will then anchor the discussion around questions for which there is little agreement within the community (See Figure 2 above). To ensure that the panelists are well-prepared for the panel, we have provided them with access to interactive dashboards containing survey results; these dashboards have affordances to filter and facet results by different demographic segments. - -Our panelists represent different cross-sections of our community, with perspectives spanning career level, region, gender, and affiliation. In keeping with the theme of the panel, some panelists will appear in person, while others will join remotely. - -Our panelists include: Tim Dwyer, John Alexis Guerra-Gómez, Petra Isenberg, Takayuki Itoh, Elsie Lee-Robbins, and Andrew McNutt; the panel will be moderated by Matthew Brehmer and Narges Mahyar. diff --git a/_posts/2024-08-25-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md b/_posts/2024-08-25-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index 3be075848..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-08-25-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,44 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: The Road to VIS 2024 - Decisions -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Overall Paper Chairs -author_contact: opc@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-decisions_2 ---- -With the final acceptance decisions behind us, the official VIS 2024 review process is coming to a close. We felt that it was worth taking a moment now to look back at this most recent milestone in the review process: the decision making. In fact, doing so can be quite educational; not so much for the vast majority of papers where the process went right, but rather for the very few where it went wrong (even very wrong). - -Because IEEE VIS publishes its papers in a special issue of the IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG) journal, the VIS review process has real teeth. TVCG stipulates two full review rounds: an initial review round (starting April 1) followed by a second round for minor revisions (starting July 1). Papers that proceed to the second round are said to be "conditionally accepted", but make no mistake: the second round is a real review round. The primary reviewer, after discussing with the full review panel, is supposed to list required revisions in the first round review. To address these, authors get almost a full month, which is consistent with TVCG (3 months for major revisions, 1 month for minor). If these required revisions are not addressed to the satisfaction of the primary reviewer, we have no qualms about rejecting conditionally accepted papers in the second round. - -For VIS 2024, we conditionally accepted a total of 129 papers out of 557 submitted papers in the first round, yielding a provisional acceptance rate of 23.2%. Even if there is no explicit target acceptance rate, this is a low number; for comparison, it was 25.8% in 2023. While we regret the low rate, our decision-making was strictly based on scientific merit and not pursuit of an arbitrary acceptance rate. Following the process outlined in our last blog post on ["From Reviews to Decisions"](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-decisions), the conditional accepts were determined through careful discussions between the reviewers, PC members, APCs, and OPCs. We shared the first-round notifications on June 6, 2024. Beyond the 129 conditional accepts, we also recommended an additional 29 as "TVCG fast-track"; submissions that showed promise but which we deemed would need a major revision requiring more than a brief month to bring over the finish line. - -What followed in that interim of three weeks in June was no doubt feverish activity across visualization labs all over the world as authors of conditionally accepted papers raced to address all the required revisions. On July 1, all 129 papers were resubmitted to the second round. At this point, the second round reviewing commenced, with the primaries (and sometimes secondaries) checking each paper, then the APCs, and finally the OPCs. - -That process ended earlier this summer, and we are happy to say that the majority of authors really did do their due diligence by carefully addressing all the required revisions. A total of 124 of the 129 papers that were conditionally accepted from the first round were finally accepted at the end of the second round. For a small number of these 124 papers, there were minor issues that the OPCs, APCs, and program committee members flagged and discussed. In the end, all of these issues could be handled within the confines of the regular review process. Congratulations to the authors of these 124 papers—we very much look forward to seeing your work being presented in Florida this October! - -But what about the remaining 5 papers that were rejected in the second round? We feel there are valuable lessons here to share with the community while keeping the narrative high-level enough to protect the identities of the authors, reviewers, and PC members involved. - -For one of the five rejected papers, the primary flagged a situation where the authors had failed to address a critical requirement: framing the novelty of the contributions of their work with respect to previous work. Moreover, they removed almost 20 references in their second round revision. When looking closer, we found that the authors had addressed a comment about reorganizing the related work by shrinking it in half and cutting many of the original references. Importantly, several of the missing relevant literature that the reviewers asked the paper to cite had not been added to the new version of the paper (even if the authors claimed they had done so in their revision report). We OPCs ended up spending a significant amount of time checking that this was not just a case of the authors trimming the fat off the paper, but came to the same conclusion as the primary. The changes to the related work did not sufficiently address the required revision. The paper was rejected. - -For a second rejected paper, the new revision was submitted to the second review round with exactly 10 pages of content and 2 pages of references. As VIS authors will know, we only allow papers with up to 9 pages of content and up to 2 pages of references. Nevertheless, the authors—some senior ones among them—resubmitted the paper with a full page beyond the limit. The paper was rejected. - -You might argue for both of the above cases that these are situations where the OPCs could have engaged the author team in a conversation to address the issues rather than rejecting outright. Unfortunately, there simply isn't sufficient time in the schedule for authors to shrink their paper down by a full page, or address novelty concerns that were not handled during revisions. And besides, there is a fairness issue; why should some authors get special treatment? What if everyone did this? - -The final three rejected papers share a common theme: a severe conflict of interest violation. During the final checks on the list of accepted papers, it was discovered that a paper had been managed by a primary reviewer who was the former Ph.D. student of the paper's senior author. As we dug deeper, we found two more conditionally accepted papers involving that senior author that had been handled by the same primary reviewer (a member of the IEEE VIS 2024 program committee). - -Your own masters, Ph.D., and postdoc advisors are permanent conflicts in the IEEE VIS community (and in most scientific communities). This means that unlike for your paper co-authors or grant co-investigators, where conflicts disappear after three years, your conflict of interest with your former advisor (and, inversely, with your former students) never goes away. This information is widely known in the VIS community; it is enshrined in our [paper submission guidelines](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/info/call-participation/paper-submission-guidelines) with a link to the [IEEE VGTC Ethics Guidelines](https://tc.computer.org/vgtc/conferences/ethics-guidelines/reviewer-ethics/), and it was recently discussed in our Road to VIS 2024 blog post on ["Handling Conflicts"](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-handling-conflicts). We tell all our PC members to be mindful of conflicts, both when they are recruited as well as when they bid on papers and recruit reviewers. - -In other words, knowingly reviewing papers written by your own Ph.D. advisor is a very serious breach of the integrity of the IEEE VIS review process. - -PC members see the identity of all authors in PCS (our submission reviewing system) even if a paper is anonymized. This particular primary reviewer had been given clear instructions, did not declare a conflict with their advisor, and failed to tell us that they had been assigned three of their advisor's papers as primary reviewer—for four months! - -As far as we can tell, nothing like this has ever happened before in the 30-year history of the VIS conference. We thus had no procedures or tool support to spot this specific problem. Furthermore, with a total of more than 1,900 unique authors submitting papers to VIS 2024, it is virtually impossible for the OPCs and APCs to be fully aware of all conflicts between them. Instead, we rely on our PC members, reviewers, and authors to carefully self-declare all these conflicts in advance of the review assignment process. Note that we don't expect perfection: after the assignments are released, there is a chance for reviewers to let us know if a previously undetected conflict appears. There were several situations when this happened, causing us OPCs to swap papers between PC members when people discovered a conflict not previously declared. - -Unfortunately, the fact that this conflict did happen irrevocably compromised the review process for all three of these papers. Primary reviewers have a significant impact on a paper's fate by leading the discussion and summarizing the other reviews. There is no easy way to disentangle this impact. Perhaps if the problem had been spotted in the first round, we could conceivably have replaced the primary. At this point, near the very end, it is impossible to know whether these papers would have even made it to the second round with an unconflicted primary. There is also no time to run the review process all over again given our tight schedule. As a result, all three papers were rejected, but with a special offer from TVCG for the papers to be immediately resubmitted to the journal while retaining the two unconflicted reviewers and only replacing the primary. - -The fallout from this incident is significant. Most serious is the impact on the graduate students whose papers were rejected due to factors beyond their own control. Second, the senior author (the Ph.D. advisor of the primary reviewer at fault) has three of their conditionally accepted papers rejected, again due to no fault of their own. And third, the primary reviewer who committed this breach of review integrity and professional ethics has opened themselves up to an academic misconduct investigation. - -The greater lesson from this incident is to take conflicts of interest very seriously. Make sure that you carefully declare not only your co-authors and co-investigators in PCS, but also your masters, Ph.D., and postdoc advisors. If you have ever advised students, you should also declare your own current and former students as permanent conflicts! Vigilance about your own conflicts is one good strategy to protect yourself from situations like this in the future. - -There is damage to the VIS review process as well. Our goal when addressing the incident was to protect the scientific integrity of VIS (and TVCG), but there can be no perfect solution to this kind of difficult problem. We OPCs and APCs will be reviewing our procedures to ensure that this problem will not happen again. We will be looking into ways to improve the PCS paper submission and reviewing system to spot problems of this nature. And we will do our best to educate the community about the importance of conflicts. This blog post is part of that latter effort. diff --git a/_posts/2024-09-01-vis-2024-openpractices-report.md b/_posts/2024-09-01-vis-2024-openpractices-report.md deleted file mode 100644 index 372734304..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-09-01-vis-2024-openpractices-report.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,104 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: VIS 2024 - State of Open Practices Report -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS Open Practices Committee -corresponding: Laura Garrison, Michael Correll, Cody Dunne -author_contact: open_practices@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-openpractices-report ---- - -At VIS last year, we in the Open Practices Committee led a town hall where we discussed the long-term Open Science goals for our community. These were: - -1. **Research should be accessible to everyone**. Financial means and privileged access should not limit anyone’s ability to participate in and learn from visualization research. -2. **Research should be transparent, scrutinizable, and trustworthy**. Authors should be as transparent as possible about their research processes and results. Increased transparency can help reviewers and readers judge for themselves whether the research conducted was plausible and whether the results are reliable. -3. **Research should be replicable and/or transferable**. -We believe that our community should support knowledge transfer between teams and that research results should stand up to scrutiny by future researchers. - -For VIS 2024, we set objectives to further encourage our community to submit supplemental materials for review. We provided [guidelines to assist in the submission of supplemental materials](../content/info/call-participation/paper-submission-guidelines#supplemental-material) as well as [guidelines for reviewing these materials](../content/info/call-participation/review-instructions#supplemental-materials). We have also continued to encourage authors to post preprints on approved servers and to provide clearer guidance for the community through the [VIS 2024 Open Practices pages](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/info/open-practices/open-practices). To further increase our transparency, we provided an updated [VGTC journal template](https://github.com/ieeevgtc/tvcg-journal-latex/) allowing the sections “Supplemental Material”, “Figure Credits” and “Acknowledgements” on the reference-only pages. - -Accepted authors (congratulations, by the way!) may also have noticed some additional questions in the camera-ready submission form, asking for information about their open practices for their work in terms of posting preprints, preregistration, and supplemental material. As our community continues to move towards more Open Science, we also asked accepted authors to reflect and consider if their work exhibited exemplary or noteworthy practices around documentation, reproducibility, or transparency. Thank you to those of you who provided all of this extra information. - -So, what is the state of Open Practices for VIS 2024? How do we compare to last year, and what more can we do in the coming years? - -## Full Papers - -Let's have a look first at the full papers. Of the **124** accepted full papers to VIS 2024, authors reported the following Open Science practices: - -### Preprints - -For VIS 2023, we asked authors about preprints. Self-reported data showed that about half of accepted authors posted their preprints on arXiv, just over 6% to OSF, 8% to another source, and around 35% not at all. How does this year compare? - -![Preprint repositories used]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-09-OP/preprint.png' | relative_url }}) - -This year, we see a slight improvement in the posting of preprints, up to 83 (67%) of submissions. This is a 2% improvement over last year. Furthermore, we see that all reported preprints have been posted to a free and open repository (ArXiv, OSF, or HAL). This is a step in the right direction. - -Open Practices recommends uploading a preprint of your work to a free and open-access repository to make it more findable and accessible. Our [Open Access Preprint Guide and FAQ](../content/info//open-practices/open-practices-faq) provides more information and several tutorials to help make your preprint more available. It is never too late to do this! - -### Supplemental material - -115 (93%) of accepted submissions used at least one supplemental material field, whether PCS, external, or both PCS and through an external link. -![Made use of at least one supplemental material field in PCS]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-09-OP/suppl_upload_text.png' | relative_url }}) - -While not all papers necessarily have relevant supplemental material (for instance, position papers), for nearly all paper contributions, having supplemental material (like experimental data, code bases, or even just additional proofs and analyses) helps the work to be scrutinizable, so we view this high percentage as a step in the right direction. We do, however, recommend uploads to **both** (1) PCS for review as well as (2) a free, reliable, and long-term archive, in alignment with VIS's long-term Open Science goals. This redundancy allows both a static copy of record associated with the entry in the IEEE digital library, as well as an open and more easily scrutinized or re-analyzed version of the work. - -Besides PCS, where did accepted submissions upload their supplementary material? - -![External (to PCS) supplemental material links]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-09-OP/suppl_ext_text.png' | relative_url }}) - - -We see that 80 (around 65%) of accepted submissions uploaded their supplementary materials to an external source in addition to or instead of PCS, with the majority using OSF. For further guidance on where supplementary material should be upload, please see our [FAQ: Where should I upload supplementary material?](../content/info/open-practices/supplemental-material-faq#where-should-i-upload-supplemental-material) - -### Preregistration -We also asked about study preregistration, another new question for this year. Only eight (12.5%) submissions out of the 124 full papers reported preregistration of their studies, seven of which did so on [OSF Registries](https://osf.io/registries) and one on [AsPredicted](https://aspredicted.org/). - -![Preregistered study]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-09-OP/pre_reg.png' | relative_url }}) - - -This is a clear area where our community has room to improve. -VIS Open Practices still needs formal recommendations for study preregistration, and we acknowledge that this may not be less relevant for certain contributions. However, for work involving empirical studies, preregistering an analysis plan helps us as researchers to clearly separate hypothesis generation (postdiction) from hypothesis confirmation (prediction), thus leveraging the benefits and maintaining awareness of the limitations of statistical inference while improving the study's reproducibility and replicability [[1]](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1708274114). OSF provides an [excellent set of resources](https://help.osf.io/article/158-create-a-preregistration) for preregistering your project. -For future iterations of VIS, the Open Practices committee plans to examine more deeply where and how we support the community in preregistering relevant studies. We look forward to conversations and feedback on this process with all of you. - -## Short Papers - -Now, how does the short papers track look? Of the 66 accepted short papers, authors reported the following on Open Practices: - -### Preprints - -39, or around 59% of accepted short papers, posted a preprint of their work. This is lower than what we see in the full paper submissions and we would like to see this number improve in the coming years. - -Of those submissions that posted preprints, most used ArXiv, a few OSF, and a few used custom domains, mainly their university hosting services. - -![Preprint repositories used]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-09-OP/SP_preprint.png' | relative_url }}) - -### Supplementary material - -Of the 66 accepted short papers, 54 (around 82%) included supplementary material in some form in their submission, whether through PCS directly and/or through upload to an external repository. The majority of authors, as we can see, did both. - -![Supplementary material provided]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-09-OP/SP_suppl_upload_text.png' | relative_url }}) - -And where did authors upload their supplementary material externally? - -![External (to PCS) supplemental material links]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-09-OP/SP_suppl_ext_text.png' | relative_url }}) - -Here, we see more variation than for the full paper submission. GitHub and OSF are similarly used, and some authors also used Kaggle, Google Drive, and Observable to host their supplementary material. As for the full papers, we recommend archiving supplementary materials to a free, reliable, long-term archive—GitHub links can change or disappear. - -## Self-nomination for exemplary open practices at VIS 2024 - -Finally, we asked accepted authors to consider self-nominating if they feel their practices around documentation, reproducibility, and/or transparency are noteworthy. - -**Of the 190 accepted submissions across both full and short paper tracks, 37 self-nominated their work for exemplary open practices.** -This is further split between 27 for the full paper and 10 for the short paper track. - -Most self-nominations, whether full or short paper track, indicated provision of code, data, thorough documentation, and/or other study instruments (e.g., cleaned transcripts, codebook, study protocols) for reproducibility and/or replicability. Several also noted study preregistration and registering materials under Creative Commons licenses for re-use. As a community, we hope that soon, **such practices will become the norm for all submissions**. - -We are grateful to those authors who self-nominated and provided further details on their practices. We are still discussing how to move forward with this information and plan to reach out to some or all self-nominees in the coming months for thoughts and feedback. - -## Thank you, authors! - -Thanks again to all authors who provided this information. We are grateful for your time and contributions and look forward to ways that we as a community can (and should!) continue to make our science more transparent and scrutinized. As always, we welcome thoughts and feedback from the community and look forward to seeing you in Florida in just over one month. - -## References - -[1] Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600-2606. diff --git a/_posts/2024-09-25-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md b/_posts/2024-09-25-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md deleted file mode 100644 index 52499f704..000000000 --- a/_posts/2024-09-25-vis-2024-OPC-blog.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,35 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: The Road to VIS 2024 - Reflections on Reviewing -description: -layout: blog-page -active_nav: Blog -authors: The VIS 2024 Overall Paper Chairs -author_contact: opc@ieeevis.org -permalink: /blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-Reviewing ---- - -The road to VIS 2024 is coming to an end and our work as OPCs is almost done. In a few short weeks, we will be opening the paper program at the conference and we will be saying farewell to outgoing OPC Tamara Munzner, who served the conference both last year as well as this one. Together with stalwart OPC assistant Petra Specht, Holger Theisel and Niklas Elmqvist will continue on for next year, and will be joined by Melanie Tory from Northeastern University as the third OPC. - -In other words, this is as good a time as any to reflect on the road to VIS 2024: what went wrong, what went well, and what will happen in the future. - -This is the tenth "Road to VIS 2024" post that we are posting to the IEEE VIS website. Overall, we count this blog post series as a positive achievement for VIS 2024. We hope that these posts have helped to shed some light on the inside workings of the conference for both early-career and senior researchers alike. We have valued the chance to speak to the community directly in this way. - -If you cast your mind back to the early days of the blog, you may remember our second post on the ["Call for Papers"](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-call-for-papers), where we talked about the four changes we were making to the conference for 2024. Earlier this summer, we distributed a survey to our program committee to collect their feedback on these changes and the overall review process this year. Out of a total of 142 PC members and 12 Area Papers Chairs, we received 75 responses—thank you!—which we think is a pretty good rate, and certainly good enough to base our decision-making on. - -Our first change, to reduce the number of reviewers per paper from four to three (primary, secondary, and one external reviewer) yielded 47% in favor, 18% undecided, and 35% negative (see below). There were many free-form comments in favor and against; we read them all. Nevertheless, we think that this response warrants continuing the experiment for at least another year. We are awaiting the VSC's final decision on this proposal for VIS 2025. - -![statistic 1]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-09-25/Bild_1.png' | relative_url }}) - - -Our second change, to increase the load for each PC member from six to eight—and thereby reducing the size of the program committee to free up external reviewers—was much less popular. As can be seen in the pie chart below, 74% were against keeping this load and wanted to go back to 6 per PC member, 11% were undecided, and only 15% felt that the 8 papers per PC member load was acceptable. The comments were rather scathing, with some respondents saying they would decline the PC next year if the higher load was maintained for VIS 2025. While we note that 8 used to be the norm for the VIS conference in the past, we have heard this feedback loud and clear. We are awaiting the VSC's approval on going back to 6 papers per PC member for VIS 2025. - -![statistic 2]({{ 'assets/posts/2024-09-25/Bild_2.png' | relative_url }}) - - -We also collected general feedback on the review process and read each of the responses. Overall, PC members provided many helpful tips on managing the reviewing load, finding external reviewers, increasing the reviewer pool, improving the transparency of the process, and desk rejecting more liberally. We thank everyone who took the time to offer their thoughts on the process and we will be doing our best to incorporate their feedback, directly or indirectly, for next year. - -This brings us to the topic of the future: VIS 2025. While we have not yet even held VIS 2024, it is never too early to prepare for what's next. Beyond the changes discussed above—keeping three reviewers and going back to six papers per PC member—we have some bold ideas of where VIS should go. Some of these deal with improvements to PCS to reduce the impact of unethical reviewing; see our post on ["Decisions"](https://ieeevis.org/year/2024/blog/vis-2024-OPC-blog-decisions_2), for more details on this. However, some ideas that we are considering are sufficiently bold or experimental that we would first like to hear what the community has to say about them. For this reason, the VIS 2024 and the incoming 2025 OPCs plan to discuss them at the VIS town hall during the conference. To give you a flavor of some of the things we are considering, we're thinking about (1) extending the deadline a week for only supplemental material, (2) giving authors the option to publish anonymized reviews with their accepted papers, and (3) introducing a student reviewer program where primary reviewers optionally get to invite a Ph.D. or masters student as an advisory "student reviewer" for each paper they manage. - -We hope that you will join us at the VIS 2024 town hall so that you can weigh in on these ideas, and offer any other ideas that you may have for improving VIS in the future. - -Anyway, our work here is almost done. This has been quite a ride and we're looking forward to a vibrant finale at the conference. We can't wait to let you see the exciting scientific program that the community has assembled. See you in St. Pete Beach! diff --git a/content/welcome.md b/content/welcome.md index b4a9b4fa8..99ba3e6de 100644 --- a/content/welcome.md +++ b/content/welcome.md @@ -10,9 +10,10 @@ IEEE VIS 2025 will be the year’s premier forum for advances in theory, methods We invite you to share your research, insights, and enthusiasm at IEEE VIS. In addition to the main program, IEEE VIS 2025 will also feature a diverse range of symposia and co-located events. ***VIS 2025 General Chairs***
-[Paul Rosen](https://www.sci.utah.edu/people/prosen.html), University of Utah
-[Kristi Potter](https://www.nrel.gov/research/staff/kristi-potter.html), National Renewable Energy Laboratory
-[Remco Chang](https://www.cs.tufts.edu/~remco/), Tufts University
+[Johanna Schmidt](), affiliation
+[Kresimir Matković](), affiliation
+[Barbora Kozlíková](), affiliation
+[Eduard Gröller](), affiliation
---- diff --git a/src/styles/layout.css b/src/styles/layout.css index 0996ceb9f..533ddafae 100644 --- a/src/styles/layout.css +++ b/src/styles/layout.css @@ -47,10 +47,10 @@ html { /* Main */ main { - /* margin-top: 70px; */ + margin-top: 70px; /* Push down to compensate for fixed nav*/ - margin-top: 140px; + /* margin-top: 140px; */ /* Adding 70px for the program navbar */ } diff --git a/src/styles/program-navigation.css b/src/styles/program-navigation.css index e531480c1..51f156465 100644 --- a/src/styles/program-navigation.css +++ b/src/styles/program-navigation.css @@ -338,8 +338,9 @@ height: 100%; top: 0; z-index: 100; - background: rgba(0, 89, 175, 0.4); cursor: pointer; + opacity: 0.75; + @apply bg-secondary-100 } .fade-enter-active, .fade-leave-active { diff --git a/tailwind.config.js b/tailwind.config.js index 2d14916d0..99159a870 100644 --- a/tailwind.config.js +++ b/tailwind.config.js @@ -12,21 +12,21 @@ module.exports = { theme: { colors: { primary: { - default: '#DA171C', //#a46314',//'#8ca8c4',// '#701c00',//'#841617',//#26853c', // '#7f6c5e', - 800: '#a46314',//'#8ca8c4',//'#004c03', // '#7f6c5e', - 700: '#a46314',//'#8ca8c4',//'#00661c', // '#7f6c5e', - 600: '#a46314',//'#8ca8c4',//'#7db68a', // '#b9aba1', - 500: colors.white, - 200: '#a46314',//'#8ca8c4',//'#6aa868', // '#b9aba1', - 100: '#a46314',//colors.white, // '#b9aba1', + default: '#DA171C', + 800: '#DA171C', + 700: '#DE3135', + 600: '#E24B4E', + 500: '#E66468', + 200: '#F3B2B3', + 100: colors.white }, secondary: { default: '#575756', //'#3F657F',//'#8ca8c4', //'#1d3160',//'#6f2184', // '#c42026', - 800: '#3F657F',//'#8ca8c4',//'#1d3160',//'#6f2184', // '#b42026', - 700: '#3F657F',//'#8ca8c4',//'#8c3800',//'#853899', // '#c42026', - 600: '#3F657F',//'#8ca8c4',//'#9b4faf', // '#d3855f', - 200: '#3F657F',//colors.white, // '#e0a778', - 100: '#3F657F',//colors.white, // '#e0a778', + 800: '#575756',//'#8ca8c4',//'#1d3160',//'#6f2184', // '#b42026', + 700: '#7e7e7d',//'#8ca8c4',//'#8c3800',//'#853899', // '#c42026', + 600: '#a7a7a7',//'#8ca8c4',//'#9b4faf', // '#d3855f', + 200: '#d2d2d2',//colors.white, // '#e0a778', + 100: colors.white, }, accent: { default: '#575756', //'#3F657F',//'#8ca8c4',// '#1d3160',//'#6f2184', // '#b9aba1',,