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) 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.
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.
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>
1---2name: ieee-pacific-visualization-symposium3description: 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.4---567# IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis)
89## Conference positioning
1011IEEE 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.
1213Because 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`.
1415## When to trigger
1617- The author names PacificVis / IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium as the target venue.
18- A manuscript in visualization and visual analytics with Asia-Pacific community focus needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
19- The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
20- The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
2122## Scope & topic fit
2324- Core fit: visualization and visual analytics with Asia-Pacific community focus.
25- Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
26- 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.
27- 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.
28- If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
2930## Venue-specific calibration
3132- 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.
33- Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
34- Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: visualization and visual analytics with Asia-Pacific community focus.
35- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: visualization, visual, analytics, asia-pacific, community, focus, venue-specific, contribution, pacificvis, github.
36- Official anchor domain: pacificvis.github.io. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
3738## Close-neighbor routing guardrail
3940- Route to PacificVis when the paper is a visualization contribution that fits the Pacific
41 visualization community or a focused visualization symposium scale.
42- Use IEEE VIS or EuroVis for broader flagship visualization claims; use AVI/CHI/UIST when
43 interface design or user interaction, not visualization knowledge, is the main novelty.
4445## Method & evidence bar
4647- Clone-audit guardrail: PacificVis is not a generic interface or visual-media
48 fallback. The manuscript needs a visualization research object: encoding,
49 interaction for sensemaking, visual analytics workflow, evaluation of visual
50 design choices, or domain insight produced through visualization. If the main
51 contribution is an accessibility interaction, image-recognition model, or
52 multimedia retrieval system, compare ASSETS, CHI/UIST, CVPR, or ACM MM first.
53- Match the contribution type to the evidence: controlled study, field deployment, design inquiry, technical system, dataset, or theory.
54- Report participants, recruitment, analysis method, consent/ethics, and limitations with enough detail for HCI review.
55- For AI-infused interfaces, evaluate both model behavior and user experience; either alone is usually insufficient.
56- For PacificVis, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a visualization paper with strong visual design and targeted evaluation.
57- Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
5859## Structure & house style
6061- Explain who benefits, what interaction changes, and what design knowledge the paper contributes.
62- Avoid treating users as a decoration for a technical system; the human evidence has to shape the claim.
63- Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
64- The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
65- Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
6667## Official-cycle checklist
6869- Open the live official venue page: https://pacificvis.github.io/
70- 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.
71- Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
72- Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
73- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
7475## Pre-submission self-check
7677- [ ] One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at PacificVis, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
78- [ ] The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
79- [ ] Related work includes the nearest current-cycle visualization papers and explains the technical delta.
80- [ ] The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
81- [ ] The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
8283## Common desk-reject triggers
8485- Underpowered or poorly matched user study for an ambitious design claim.
86- Novel interface demo without contribution to interaction knowledge.
87- Ethics, accessibility, or community context handled superficially.
88- Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
89- A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving PacificVis reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
9091## Re-routing decision
9293If 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.
9495## Output format
9697```text
98[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
99[Target] IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis)
100[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
101[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
102[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
103[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
104[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
105```
106107---
108109**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Computer-Science-Conference-Skills/skills/ieee-pacific-visualization-symposium/SKILL.md`
Run npx skillmds add thedixitjain/ieee-pacific-visualization-symposium in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.
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. It is listed under Research & Search on SkillMD.
This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Capability flags: makes network calls. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.
This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.
Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.
thedixitjain (@thedixitjain) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.