If you missed SIGGRAPH 2017 watch a selection of recorded Live Streaming Sessions.
Thank you for agreeing to review a paper for SIGGRAPH. Your reviews have a direct and important impact on the quality of the most important conference in computer graphics. Your reviews also help the computer-graphics community as a whole to improve the quality of its research. To access review materials and the web review forms, please login to the online submission system using your standard submission account.
Look for what's good or stimulating in the paper. Minor flaws can be corrected and shouldn't be a reason to reject a paper. Each paper that is accepted should, however, be technically sound and make a substantial contribution to the field. Please familiarize yourself with the information in the Call for Submissions.
Please read the Ethics of Review. It is extremely important that we uphold our reputation for treating ideas confidentially and professionally. By accepting a paper for review, you are guaranteeing to review all materials submitted in the approved formats: PDF for documents; QuickTime, MPEG, or DivX Version 6 formats for videos (and do not forget to check for an audio track!); and PNG or JPG for images. If you are not willing to make this guarantee, please recuse yourself from reviewing the paper.
You are also expected to make a reasonable effort to review materials in non-approved formats, but you are not under the same absolute obligation to do so.
We are using double-blind reviewing again this year. Authors were asked to take reasonable efforts to hide their identities, including not listing their names or affiliations and omitting acknowledgements. This information will of course be included in the published version, should the paper be accepted.
One area where anonymity can affect your evaluation of the submitted paper is if the paper builds on ideas that were previously available in some prepublications form, for instance as a SIGGRAPH Talk, or as a technical report or thesis. The authors were instructed to avoid plagiarism, and to cite their sources if they used ideas from somebody else’s work. They should have also cited all their own prepublications in an anonymous way (see Submission Policy). Reviewers should not deliberately try to follow such citations back to the authors; these citations are only mentioned as a means to ascertain that content you have independently discovered (online or otherwise) as part of your reviewing due diligence was written by the same authors — and thus does not constitute plagiarism.
Due to the number of new works posted on arXiv and other non-peer-reviewed websites on a daily basis, it is increasingly likely that you might find online reports that are highly relevant to the submitted work, and that the authors were unaware of. In this case, authors of conditionally accepted papers should be asked to cite these prepublications in their final revision. Note that authors are allowed to cite them as concurrent work, without the burden of having to detail how their work compares or differs from these prepublications.
Please be specific and detailed in your reviews. In the discussion of related work and references, simply saying “this is well known” or “this has been common practice in the industry for years” is not sufficient: please cite specific publications or public disclosures of techniques. The Explanation section is easily the most important of the review; your discussion, sometimes more than your score, will help the Papers Committee decide which papers to accept, so please be thorough. Your reviews will be returned to the authors, so you should include any specific feedback on ways the authors can improve their papers. For more suggestions on writing your reviews, please read Greg Turk's web page on Writing Technical Reviews.
To access electronically submitted papers and supplemental material, log in to the SIGGRAPH Information System (SIS) the same way you would to make a submission to SIGGRAPH, using your existing online submission account. Once you have logged in, follow the “Access the Jury/Review System” link to view the papers assigned to you for review. If you have any questions or problems with the online review system, please contact the SIGGRAPH 2017 Papers Program Administrator.
ACM and Eurographics have generously provided full access to their respective Digital Libraries for SIGGRAPH 2017 paper reviewer usage, effective 31 January through 4 April 2017. You are encouraged to make full use of these resources:
You must login to access the full text of an article. A username and password will be made available via our electronic review system to each person who has agreed to review a SIGGRAPH paper.
The deadline for completed reviews is 3 March 2017, unless your senior reviewer set an earlier deadline for your review. The Papers Committee has a lot of work to do after the reviews are in. Adhering to this deadline is extremely important. We will once again be offering an author rebuttal process this year preceding the Papers committee meeting.
In previous years, these guidelines said “after the review process, destroy all copies of papers and videos that are not returned to the senior reviewer and erase any implementations you have written to evaluate the ideas in the papers, as well as any results of those implementations.” However, in 2012, SIGGRAPH introduced a new process for revised papers that were rejected from a previous SIGGRAPH conference, where the authors can choose to release the previous reviewers' names, so that the same reviewers can be reassigned. Therefore, there is a chance that you will be asked in the future to review such a resubmission, and may need your notes, marked manuscripts, or implementations. So you may keep them if necessary, but please be careful to insulate the ideas you learned from the review from your own research, and from your colleagues and students. Also, please be aware that your reviews may be perused by other future SIGGRAPH reviewers.