By name: ieee-pacific-visualization-symposium description: Use when targeting IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for visualization.
IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis)
Conference positioning
IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis) is a top computer-science conference venue for visualization and visual analytics with Asia-Pacific community focus. It rewards a visualization paper with strong visual design and targeted evaluation. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.
When to trigger
- The author names PacificVis / IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium as the target venue.
- A manuscript in visualization and visual analytics with Asia-Pacific community focus needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
- The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
- The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
Scope & topic fit
- Core fit: visualization and visual analytics with Asia-Pacific community focus.
- Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
- The paper should explain why the result matters to PacificVis's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
- Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
- If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
Venue-specific calibration
- Reviewer lens: Treat PacificVis as a visualization venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
- Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
- Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: visualization and visual analytics with Asia-Pacific community focus.
- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: visualization, visual, analytics, asia-pacific, community, focus, venue-specific, contribution, pacificvis, github.
- Official anchor domain: pacificvis.github.io. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
- Route to PacificVis when the paper is a visualization contribution that fits the Pacific visualization community or a focused visualization symposium scale.
- Use IEEE VIS or EuroVis for broader flagship visualization claims; use AVI/CHI/UIST when interface design or user interaction, not visualization knowledge, is the main novelty.
Method & evidence bar
- Clone-audit guardrail: PacificVis is not a generic interface or visual-media fallback. The manuscript needs a visualization research object: encoding, interaction for sensemaking, visual analytics workflow, evaluation of visual design choices, or domain insight produced through visualization. If the main contribution is an accessibility interaction, image-recognition model, or multimedia retrieval system, compare ASSETS, CHI/UIST, CVPR, or ACM MM first.
- Match the contribution type to the evidence: controlled study, field deployment, design inquiry, technical system, dataset, or theory.
- Report participants, recruitment, analysis method, consent/ethics, and limitations with enough detail for HCI review.
- For AI-infused interfaces, evaluate both model behavior and user experience; either alone is usually insufficient.
- For PacificVis, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a visualization paper with strong visual design and targeted evaluation.
- Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
- Explain who benefits, what interaction changes, and what design knowledge the paper contributes.
- Avoid treating users as a decoration for a technical system; the human evidence has to shape the claim.
- Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
- The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
- Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
Official-cycle checklist
- Open the live official venue page: https://pacificvis.github.io/
- Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
- Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
- Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at PacificVis, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
- The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
- Related work includes the nearest current-cycle visualization papers and explains the technical delta.
- The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
- The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Underpowered or poorly matched user study for an ambitious design claim.
- Novel interface demo without contribution to interaction knowledge.
- Ethics, accessibility, or community context handled superficially.
- Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
- A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving PacificVis reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses PacificVis's bar, compare against acm-chi-conference-on-human-factors-in-computing-systems / acm-symposium-on-user-interface-software-and-technology / acm-conference-on-computer-supported-cooperative-work-and-social-computing / acm-conference-on-intelligent-user-interfaces. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>