1. What does this really mean?
The major partner conferences of CGF (e.g., EG, EuroVis, EGSR, SGP, PG) adopt a two-cycle review process that is compatible with the CGF review process. During the first review cycle of these conferences, some papers may be considered potentially acceptable but will require revisions that cannot be easily completed before the second review cycle. The papers co-chairs may offer a decision <Major Revision to CGF>, which is commonly referred to as “Fast Track”. When the major revision of such a paper is submitted to CGF directly, CGF will treat it in the same way as a CGF submission that has already undergone the first review cycle and has received a major revision recommendation.
Like all CGF submissions at the <Major Revision> stage, the decision options after the second review cycle include <Accept>, <Minor Revision>, and <Reject>. CGF typically does not allow a second <Major Revision> process, except in some special circumstances (e.g., some of the original reviewers may have become unavailable and newly appointed reviewers may have identified new revision requirements). Because of the change from a conference review process to a CGF process, the special circumstances happened slightly more often in the case of a major revision from a conference to CGF.
It is important for the authors to be aware that the so-called “fast track” does not mean a “light-touch” review process. Usually the original set of the reviewers for the conference will be invited to review the major revision submitted to CGF. The associate editor also has the freedom to appoint some new reviewers if he/she feels the necessity for covering some gaps in the collective expertise of the reviewers. There have been some precedents where authors failed to address the revision requirements raised in the first review cycle (i.e., managed by the conference), leading to a <Reject> decision.
2. Where do I submit the revision, and what do I need to submit?
The major revision must be submitted directly to CGF using the “Submit an Article” option at the CGF Webpage. Please follow the instructions there.
On the first page of the submission system, please select the type corresponding to the conference. The submission system will assign an ID to the paper in the form of <CGF-17-EGSR-187>, where the conference is identified explicitly. Because the CGF submission system usually differs from the system used by a partner conference, we appreciate very much the extra effort by the authors and reviewers. In addition to the revised version of the paper (in PDF), it is important for authors to facilitate the reviewers’ access to the necessary information for the second review cycle.
- Please submit a revision report as an additional file (for review but not for publication) since the <Cover Letter> can only been seen by the editors-in-chief and the associate editor.
- It can be helpful to upload a version of the submission that color-codes the differences to the original submission.
- Please also upload the original submission (to the conference) as a supplemental file since the reviewers usually will not be able to access it at the review system for the conference.
- It is desirable, but not compulsory, for authors to upload the reviews of the original submission during the first review cycle, because it can save the reviewers’ time to locate these reviews.
3. What is the deadline?
The deadline is usually set as a date three months after the notification date of the conference concerned. The papers (IPC) co-chairs of the conference normally adjust the date slightly to make it easy to remember. If the authors have any query about the date and other submission issues, please contact the editors-in-chief of CGF.
4. My paper was rejected by a CGF partner conference. I have now made significant revisions according to the reviews. Can I submit it to CGF?
Of course. CGF indeed encourages authors to take the reviews of a partner conference seriously and make a good effort to improve the paper. When the revised paper is directly submitted to CGF, please select the paper type “Original Article“, which should result in an ID in the form of <CGF-17-OA-201>. The authors are encouraged to include a revision report, the version first submitted to the conference, and the conference reviews, similar as under 2. Unlike a major revision to CGF, an “original submission” is allowed to undergo a major revision if this is recommended by the reviewers and the associate editor. Some authors may consider this as an advantage.
5. If I submit a paper to CGF as mention in 4., can I get reviewer continuity?
Please indicate in the cover letter the fact that the paper was previously submitted to a CGF partner conference, including the paper-id, and that you wish reviewer continuity. The EiC will then try to accommodate this request, but the AE will decide how many previous reviewers it is appropriate to invite. Usually, at least one new reviewer will be invited for a fresh look.