---

name: vis-workflow description: Use when planning an IEEE VIS project timeline from area fit through the abstract and full-paper deadlines, the two-phase review, the conditional-accept second round, the IEEE TVCG camera-ready, the Graphics Replicability Stamp, and presentation, with backward-planning offsets for a visualization paper and honest handling of the annual cycle and the second-round revision window.

VIS Workflow

Use this as the project-management skill for an IEEE VIS submission. Replace every date with the current official timetable and work backwards from the abstract deadline — which precedes the full-paper deadline and locks your author list. VIS publishes in IEEE TVCG, so plan for a likely conditional-accept second round inside the review cycle, not just an accept/reject.

VIS is a conference whose full papers are journal articles: the conference has no standing editor-in-chief, and the rotating analogue is the per-edition VIS Executive Committee, Overall Paper Chairs, and the six Area Paper Chairs (verify the roster on the current organizing page — 待核实 beyond named chairs). The cost model is conference registration; at least one author presents.

Milestones

• Area fit: confirm VIS over a sibling venue and pick the primary area among the six (vis-topic-selection).
• Evidence lock: freeze the contribution type, the design rationale, the study/benchmark design, and the supplemental video plan.
• Abstract: submit real title, abstract, final author list, primary area, and keywords by the abstract deadline (VIS 2026: 21 March 2026).
• Full paper: upload the PDF (VIS 2026: 31 March 2026); title/abstract/PDF then freeze.
• Supplemental: finish and anonymize the video, code, and data in the one-week window (VIS 2026: 7 April 2026).
• First-round reviews: triage each comment by criterion (novelty, impact, evidence, methodology, encoding rationale, reproducibility).
• Conditional accept (if issued): execute a revision plus a summary-of-changes, re-read by the same reviewers against the required changes.
• Decision: archive reviews, response, and every submitted version.
• Acceptance: prepare the TVCG camera-ready, complete Open Practices disclosures, pursue the Graphics Replicability Stamp on its own track, register, and present.

Backward plan from the paper deadline

Weeks out (heuristic)	Visualization-paper milestone
10+	Contribution type fixed; data/task abstraction and design rationale settled
8	Technique/system implemented; study or benchmark designed; preregistration filed if used
6	Study run / benchmark complete; effect sizes and CIs computed; figures drafted
4	Full draft in the VGTC/TVCG template; supplemental video shot
3	Internal mock review by a visualization reader
2	Encoding rationale hardened, related-work delta sharpened, 9-page budget met
1	Abstract submitted with final authors; anonymity sweep on PDF + video (if double-blind)
0	Full PDF uploaded; supplemental finished and anonymized in its extra week

These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current call, never to a previous cycle's calendar.

The annual-cycle reality

VIS runs a single annual full-paper cycle. Two planning consequences:

• A conditional accept has a hard second-round window. Under-budgeting the revision turns a winnable R&R into a reject; treat the required changes as a scored deadline, not a formality.
• Missing the annual deadline costs roughly a year at VIS; a sibling venue (EuroVis, PacificVis) or the TVCG journal track may have a nearer date — factor that into routing rather than idling.

Failure modes by stage

• Evidence still moving at week 4 forces last-minute studies nobody has audited — the classic methodology reject in the making.
• Leaving the video to the final week wastes VIS's extra supplemental week and ships an unpolished or identity-leaking video that reviewers judge harshly.
• Skipping the mock review forfeits the one chance to hear "your encoding is not justified" from a friend instead of a reviewer.
• Treating a conditional accept as an accept and under-budgeting the revision turns it into a rejection.
• Adding an author after the abstract deadline — not permitted; finalize authorship early.

Coordination notes

• Assign one owner for the supplemental video/code and another for the anonymity sweep; shared ownership is how both slip.
• Archive the exact submitted PDF, supplemental, and (later) summary-of-changes — the second round must quote them precisely and, if double-blind, stay anonymous through phase one.

Output format

[Current stage] idea / evidence / writing / abstract / submitted / conditional accept / accepted
[Next official deadline] <date and source, or unknown>
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness>
[Risk register] <page budget / anonymity / evidence / encoding rationale / video / second round>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>