This document is to assist authors of papers for Computer Graphics Forum.
Writing a paper
Eurographics Ethics Policy for the Paper Review Process
As a reviewer for Eurographics you have the responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the ideas represented in the papers you review. Eurographics submissions are by their very nature unpublished documents. The work is considered new or proprietary by the authors. Of course, their intent is to ultimately publish to the world, but until the work appears in the Eurographics proceedings, it is considered confidential. In particular, sending a paper to Eurographics for review does not constitute a public disclosure.
Protection of the ideas in the papers you receive means:
* Do not show the paper to anyone else, including colleagues or students, unless you have asked them to write a review, or to help with your review. If you do, they need to be aware of this ethics policy.
* Do not show videos or any other submitted materials to non-reviewers.
* Do not use ideas from papers you review to develop new ones. After the review process, destroy all copies of papers, videos, and other materials, and erase any implementations you have written to evaluate the ideas in the papers, as well as any results of those implementations.
AVOID CONFLICT OF INTEREST
As a reviewer of a Eurographics paper you have a certain power over the reviewing process. It is important for you to avoid any conflict of interest, or the outside perception of a conflict of interest. Even though you would, of course, act impartially on any paper, there should be absolutely no question about the impartiality of review. Thus, if you are assigned a paper where your review would create a possible conflict of interest, you should return the paper and not submit a review.
The blind reviewing process will help hide the authorship of many papers, and senior reviewers will try hard to avoid conflicts. But if you recognize the work or the author and feel it could present a conflict of interest, notify the senior reviewer as soon as possible so he or she can find someone else to review it.
Here are the explicit rules for conflict of interest. You must excuse yourself from all review/discussion of a given paper if:
1. You work at the same institution.
2. You have been directly involved in the work and will be receiving credit in some way. If you're a member of the author's thesis committee and the paper is about his/her thesis work, then you were involved.
3. You suspect that others might see a conflict of interest in your involvement. For example, even though Microsoft Research in Washington and China are in some ways more distant than Berkeley and MIT, there is likely to be a perception that they are "both Microsoft," hence folks from one should not review papers from the other.
4. You have collaborated with one of the authors in the past two years. We define collaboration as having written a paper together, although you should use your judgment for other cases.
5. You were the PhD advisor of one of the authors or you were the PhD advisee of an author Advisees represent a lifetime conflict of interest.
And if you don't feel that you can make an unbiased determination for any reason not listed above, you should not review the paper in question.
Publishing papers at Eurographics is a serious matter. This does not mean that we cannot have any fun in the paper sessions. But it does mean that we have a responsibility to be serious in the reviewing process.
You should make an effort to do a good review. This is obvious. But a common complaint is that some reviews can be so sketchy that it looks like the reviewer did not even seem to take the time to read the paper carefully. A casual or flippant review of a paper that the author has seriously submitted is not appropriate and discredits the entire Eurographics review process.
There is no dishonor in being too busy to do a good review, or to realize that you have over-committed yourself and cannot review all the papers you agreed to review. But it is a big mistake to take on too much, and then not back out early enough to allow recovery. If you cannot do a decent job, say so. But please, do it early so that the senior reviewer has time to select another reviewer before the deadline.
Be professional ! Belittling or sarcastic comments may help display one's wit, but they are unnecessary in the reviewing process. The most valuable comments in a review are those that help the authors understand the shortcomings of their work and how they might improve it. If you intensely dislike a paper, give it a low score. That makes a sufficient statement.
Adherence to ethics makes the whole reviewing process more complicated and sometimes less efficient. But convenience, efficiency, and expediency are not good reasons to contravene ethics. It is precisely at those times when it would be easier or more efficient to bend the rules that it is most important to do the right thing. Ultimately, spending that energy and time is an investment into the long-term health of the conference and the community of computer graphics researchers.
The files below contain useful information for authors and organizers of Eurographics Workshops, as well as some publishing and formatting guidelines.
The Events Management Workflow is described in the:
A MS Word document is also available:
The "Technical Meeting Request Form" can be downloaded from:
This has to be printed, signed by every author and faxed to the publisher when you submit the camera-ready copy of your EG Workshop paper.
... is an example of an EG Workshop/ Symposium paper with a correct layout. If you are not using our style files or templates, you have to match this sample as closely as possible.
... is a set of LaTeX2e style files for the correct EG Workshop layout (including an example). It is strongly recommended, that you use this as a basis for your submission.