Use when deciding whether a project belongs at IEEE VIS or should be routed to EuroVis, PacificVis, CHI, a graphics venue, or the IEEE TVCG journal track, and when choosing among the six VIS areas (Theoretical & Empirical, Applications, Systems & Rendering, Representations & Interaction, Data Transformations, Analytics & Decisions) by contribution type and evidence maturity.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill vis-topic-selection --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Vis Topic Selection?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-vis-topic-selection)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: vis-topic-selection
description: Use when deciding whether a project belongs at IEEE VIS or should be routed to EuroVis, PacificVis, CHI, a graphics venue, or the IEEE TVCG journal track, and when choosing among the six VIS areas (Theoretical & Empirical, Applications, Systems & Rendering, Representations & Interaction, Data Transformations, Analytics & Decisions) by contribution type and evidence maturity.
---
# 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
```text
[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.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!