STARs are survey papers that cover hot topics in contemporary computer graphics research. Their goal is to give a comprehensive overview of all relevant work in the respective field and to explain in depth the techniques and algorithms involved. Potential STARs may be based on a recent tutorial or course given by the authors.Apparently, this has been going on for the last few years. It's an interesting idea:
For submission, a 6-10 page STAR-let is sufficient, which should contain the author(s) name(s), institution, short biography and contact details, along with a detailed outline of the STAR, including the main bibliographical entries. All submitted manuscripts undergo a formal review process. Authors of conditionally accepted proposals must subsequently submit a final 15-25-page STAR, that incorporates constructive reviewer feedback and acceptance of the STAR is contingent on this requirement.(Emphasis mine). Sounds almost like the review process is intermediate between a conference review and a journal review (because of the contingent acceptance mode). It's always interesting to hear about new ways of talking about, and disseminating, new research.
Accepted STAR papers will be invited to be submitted as regular contributions to Computer Graphics Forum.
At EG'05, STAR authors will be given 90 minutes to present the state-of-the-art of their respective field. For one author, the conference registration fee will be waived.
As formats go, this sounds similar to the tutorials that are common in database conferences, but are all too rare at theory conferences. FOCS one year had a day of tutorials, and we have endless straw polls on 'does the community want to spend an extra day attending tutorials', which is guaranteed to get a NO answer almost always.
Tags: Eurographics, STAR
One thing to ask here is whether the conference has ever refused final acceptance to a contingently accepted paper. I have seen several conferences with a formal ``shepherding" process, in which all papers are accepted contingent on modifications in concert with a ``shepherd" from the PC. In many cases, the authors disregard the shepherd's comments, and in at least one case some of the claims were actually false. In all cases I'm aware of, however, the paper appeared anyway.
ReplyDeletePosted by Anonymous