agentsclimarketplace

Vis workflow

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/VIS-Skills/skills/vis-workflow

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.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill vis-workflow

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

SKILL.md

5.0 KB, ~1.1k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

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
8Technique/system implemented; study or benchmark designed; preregistration filed if used
6Study run / benchmark complete; effect sizes and CIs computed; figures drafted
4Full draft in the VGTC/TVCG template; supplemental video shot
3Internal mock review by a visualization reader
2Encoding rationale hardened, related-work delta sharpened, 9-page budget met
1Abstract submitted with final authors; anonymity sweep on PDF + video (if double-blind)
0Full 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>

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.