vis-topic-selection

VIS Topic Selection

Decide the venue and the area before drafting. IEEE VIS is the flagship of the visualization

community, and since 2021 it is a single unified conference whose full papers are **IEEE TVCG

journal articles across six areas. Two routing questions matter: is this a visualization

paper at all (versus HCI, graphics, or ML), and which of the six areas** is its primary home.

A technically strong paper whose real lesson is about a model, a rendering primitive, or an

interaction unrelated to seeing data is respected and then rejected as out of scope.

Is it a visualization paper?

VIS rewards contributions about **how people visually represent, interact with, and reason about

data**. The test: if you removed the visual-representation-and-task core, is there still a paper?

If the contribution is a machine-learning model whose visualization is incidental, or a rendering

technique with no data-analysis task, or an interaction study with no visual-encoding question, a

sibling venue fits better. If the heart is the encoding, the perception, the analytic workflow, or

the visualization system, it is a VIS paper.

Choosing among the six areas (the primary-area decision)

| Your contribution's center | Primary area |

|---|---|

| Theory, models, or empirical/perceptual studies establishing visualization foundations | Theoretical & Empirical |

| An application or design study solving a real domain problem with visualization | Applications |

| Building visualization systems, rendering algorithms, or alternate I/O modalities | Systems & Rendering |

| Designing visual representations and interaction techniques for data/users/tasks | Representations & Interaction |

| Algorithms that transform data to enable effective visual mapping | Data Transformations |

| Integrated human-machine analytic workflows, decision support, ML-in-the-loop | Analytics & Decisions |

Your primary area determines the Area Paper Chair and the reviewer pool, so choose the area whose

community will best appreciate the contribution — not merely the one that mentions your keywords.

When a paper spans two areas, pick the one carrying the primary contribution and use keywords to

signal the secondary.

Sibling-venue routing table

| Signal in your project | Better home | Why |

|---|---|---|

| Core visualization contribution, evidence ready, next VIS deadline works | IEEE VIS | The flagship; TVCG journal publication across the six areas |

| Equally strong but the European cycle lands sooner, or the topic skews European | EuroVis / CGF | Sibling visualization venue; different calendar, Computer Graphics Forum publication |

| Regional fit or the Pacific cycle is nearer | PacificVis | Sibling regional visualization venue |

| The heart is interaction/usability with no visual-encoding question | CHI / UIST | HCI venues; the contribution is interaction, not visualization |

| The heart is rendering/geometry with no data-analysis task | SIGGRAPH / graphics venue | Graphics contribution, not visualization |

| The study is too long/nuanced for the 9-page budget, or you want a journal-first path | IEEE TVCG (journal track) | The same journal, entered directly rather than through the VIS call |

Contribution shapes VIS rewards

• New visual encoding or interaction technique — a representation or interaction that lets people

do an analysis task better, justified perceptually and evaluated (the UpSet lineage).

• System / toolkit — an integration that changes how visualizations are built or used, shown in

real use (the D3 lineage).

• Perceptual / empirical study — a controlled result about how people read visualizations that

changes design practice (the "what makes a visualization memorable?" lineage).

• Design study — a real domain problem solved with visualization and reflected into transferable

lessons (the design-study-methodology lineage).

• Model / theory / methodology — a framework that improves how the field designs or evaluates

(the nested-model lineage) — the "foundations" the venue is built on.

The remove-the-visualization and re-label tests

Two quick tests sharpen a borderline verdict:

• Remove-the-visualization test: if you deleted the visual-representation-and-task core, is there

still a contribution? If the model or the renderer is the whole paper, route to ML or graphics.

• Re-label test: could this be submitted to CHI or SIGGRAPH unchanged and read as native there?

If its heart is interaction usability or rendering, route accordingly; VIS rewards the

data-representation-and-reasoning framing.

Evidence maturity, without the ladder cliché

Fit is necessary but not sufficient: the same idea sits at different doors depending on how far the

evidence has come. An encoding idea with a sketch but no study is a poster or short paper; a system

demonstrated only on data you chose needs a real study or expert use before the full-paper track; a

study too deep for the 9-page budget may belong in the TVCG journal track first. Submitting one step

early earns a "promising, but..." and costs a full annual cycle.

Decision procedure

[Is-it-VIS] remove the visual-representation-and-task core -> still a paper? no => VIS; yes => reroute
[Contribution type] technique / system / perceptual-study / design-study / model
[Primary area] map the contribution's center to one of the six areas
[Sibling check] interaction-only -> CHI/UIST; rendering-only -> SIGGRAPH; European/Pacific cycle -> EuroVis/PacificVis
[Length check] too long for 9+2? -> consider the TVCG journal track
[Verdict] IEEE VIS (area X) / sibling venue / journal-first, with a one-line reason

Run this before the writing skills; a wrong venue or area decision wastes every later step. When the

verdict is VIS, continue with vis-workflow for the calendar and vis-writing-style for the paper

shape.