Relevant topics
See the call for papers for a
nonexhaustive list of topics.
SoCG’17 web site: http://socg2017.smp.uq.edu.au/socg.html
EasyChair
SoCG’17 site: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=socg17
Criteria
When evaluating a paper, one
should address the following (interrelated) issues. A paper with a high score
should in general score high on several of them. These criteria are general and
apply to all types of papers: theoretical, applied, or experimental.
Relevance. In what respect is the paper
relevant to computational geometry? Is it directly relevant for the design,
use, analysis, or implementation of geometric algorithms? Does it have indirect
implications for the development or the theory of geometric algorithms? Does it
contribute to the mathematical foundations of discrete or
combinatorial geometry and/or algebraic geometry and/or computational topology?
Foundational/conceptual
contribution.
Does the paper introduce a new model, new notion, new definition, new approach,
novel implementation, novel application? Note the
significance and reasons for this novelty (and note the absence of such a
novelty, if applicable).
Technical
development.
Does the paper involve
Relation
to open problems.
Does the paper solve
completely/partially an open question?
How important is this question
(central/important/interesting/legitimate/stupid)? How much effort has been invested previously
in solving it and by whom?
Social
interest in paper.
Is it potentially
interesting to the whole community of computational geometry, to a major field,
to everyone in a restricted area, or interesting only to the authors?
How will
it contribute? Does it have the potential to
influence or affect future work? Does it have the potential to have an impact
on application domains? Is it/can it be important in other
fields/subjects or have a wider influence?
Type of contribution. Is it a
Some thoughts on how to evaluate papers of different types
When evaluating a paper, it is
important to keep in mind that there are different types of papers and that the
criteria by which papers of one type is evaluated may be different from those
used for papers of another type. Moreover, the importance of a common criterion
may vary from type to type.
Among
the paper types that we expect to encounter are papers focusing on:
·
mathematical
foundations,
·
algorithmic
design and complexity and/or lower bounds,
·
experimental
& implementation issues, and
·
applications.
Hybrid papers, which consist,
for example, of both an algorithmic design and analysis part and an
experimental part are of course also common.
Below
is an attempt to characterize these paper types and to specify the main
criteria by which they should be evaluated.
Score 
Interpretation 
Strong accept (+3) 
An enthusiastic accept. An excellent paper — advances the field in an important way — well written and makes it easy to understand the significance of the results. People should definitely attend the talk. This should be among the top third of the accepted papers. I would fight strongly for this paper. 
Accept (+2) 
A solid contribution. I feel I learned something worthwhile from this paper. I would want to go to the talk. Should be in the middle third of accepted papers. 
Weak accept (+1) 
A weak vote for acceptance. A reasonable contribution to an interesting problem — or maybe the contribution is good but the authors don't express it well — or maybe it's a good paper, but the subject area is marginal for the conference. Not a stellar result, but worth accepting. Should be in the bottom third of accepted papers. 
Borderline (0) 
Ambivalent. Probably publishable as a journal paper in a medium journal, but a bit too specialized or too incremental for SoCG. Or perhaps it has nice ideas but is too preliminary, or too poorly written. Please try to refrain from giving this score. 
Weak reject (1) 
A
competent paper, but not of sufficient interest/depth for SoCG.
A weak to moderate vote for rejection, but I concede that other people see
some merits in the paper. 
Reject (2) 
Too
preliminary / badlywritten /
makingsuchaminorimprovementonsuchanesoterictopic. I would fight to
have this paper rejected from the conference. 
Strong reject (3) 
A
poor paper, unsuitable for any journal. Trivial and/or nonnovel and/or
incorrect and/or out of scope. 
Grade

Interpretation

Expert
(5) 
Expert.
Consider me an "expert" on this paper. I understand it in
detail. I know the field, and I am perfectly sure about my judgement; I have
checked and understood all proofs. 
High
(4) 
High.
I am fairly familiar with the area of this paper, and have read the paper
closely enough to be reasonably confident of my judgment. 
Medium
(3) 
Medium.
I have read the paper carefully and understood the main ideas, but I'm not
very confident of my judgment on it. 
Low
(2) 
Low.
I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed outsider. I have
some idea of what this paper is about, but I'm not all that confident of my
judgment on it. 
None (1) 
Null. (to be avoided...!) Please do not use this except in extreme circumstances. 
From the CFP: All details needed to
verify the results must be provided. Supporting materials, including proofs of
theoretical claims and experimental details that do not fit in the 15page
limit should be found in the appendix. The appendix will be read by the
reviewers at their discretion and will not be published as part of the
proceedings. Thus the paper without the appendix should be able to stand on its
own.
Submitted papers are confidential.
We must not distribute them, or use them for our research. Similarly, your
reviews, grades, and confidence scores must be kept confidential. Submissions should be judged solely on the basis of the submitted extended
abstract. You may have a
personal bias on some papers. The reasons are many — personal/professional ties
to authors, you or your student are just working on the same problem, etc. Only
you can judge such a bias, and
decide if you don't feel comfortable reviewing the paper. In this case, mention
a conflict of interest to the PC.
Boris Aronov and Matya Katz, SoCG’17
cochairs
Acknowledgment: We thank Günter Rote and
Monique Teillaud for sharing their SoCG'05 and SoCG’08 instructions, and Marc
van Kreveld and Bettina Speckmann for their suggestions regarding papers of
different types.