Welcome to SIGGRAPH 2025

SIGGRAPH Technical Papers Anonymity Policy

The SIGGRAPH Technical Papers Program strives to maintain a fair and equitable, doubly anonymous review process. As such, in addition to requiring the authors to not reveal their identities directly in their SIGGRAPH submissions (see the Technical Papers Call for Submission), we also ask them to minimize the chances that the reviewers will recognize the submission authors based on information available online or under other circumstances. Such recognitions, which would compromise double-blindness, could happen “by accident” when a Technical Papers Committee (TPC) member searches for potential tertiary reviewers while browsing through their webpages or when any reviewer scans the social media or listens to a research talk. At the same time, we understand that certain communities have a culture of early dissemination, and in some instances keeping author information confidential can impose undue hardship.

Based on the above principles, the following are considered violations of the review process if they occur during the review period, i.e., from two weeks before the submission deadline (that is, starting 9 January 2025 for SIGGRAPH 2025) until the submission is conditionally accepted or the authors are notified that the submission is rejected:

1. Listing SIGGRAPH submissions or prepublications (arXiv, institutional tech reports, …) of these submissions on authors’ individual or institutional webpages.
2. Generating any publicity referring to the submitted works via university or company PR teams or channels.
3. Publicizing the submitted work in external talks (unless it is a job talk, see below).
4. Generating any publicity referring to the submitted works via authors’ individual or institutional social media channels or other forms of media. This includes publishing any types of interviews with editors/journalists/writers/interviewers of newspapers, radio, television, or magazines, as well as public relations and media arms of companies, universities, and other research institutions.
5. Publicly replying or acknowledging authorship in response to any social media posts by others regarding the submitted work.
6. Creating public code or data repositories corresponding to the submission that allow determining the author’s identity (e.g., by listing the author name, or through the username).

On the other hand, the following are NOT considered a violation of the review process rules, as long as the respective conditions are satisfied:

1. Archiving the submission (as a way to get a timestamp) as an institutional tech report, or a preprint on arXiv or a similar service, before or after the submission deadline is allowed. However, one should not state anywhere that the submission is under review for SIGGRAPH. In particular, it should not include the submission ID or use the ACM TOG/ACM conference format (this refers to conference name, copyright, etc., not to the choice of fonts, margins, or column layout).
2. Making social media posts or other forms of online promotion where only the research idea is described without referring to any submission or preprint (e.g., arXiv).
3. Authors can privately reply to submission-related queries submitted via social media. The replies should not be publicly visible.
4. Unlisted YouTube videos linked to an arXiv submission are allowed. Such videos should not include submission ids or author information.
5. Anonymous code or data repositories, i.e., ones where the author’s identity cannot be determined through username or other means, either stand-alone or linked to an arXiv submission, are allowed.
6. Authors can list submissions as “under review at SIGGRAPH” as part of the written materials submitted for job, school, and funding applications. They can also discuss them during job interviews and job interview talks.

Of utmost importance to the SIGGRAPH review process is fairness and impartiality. If these cannot be ensured for a submission during the SIGGRAPH review, it cannot be accepted.

As per our current anonymity policy, any direct breaking of anonymity in a SIGGRAPH submission (main paper, supplementary material, or code/data link) will lead to automatic desk rejection, as stipulated in the Technical Papers Call for Submission. Violations covered under A – F above do not lead to automatic desk rejection and SIGGRAPH TPC will not actively monitor compliance. However, all reviewers (TPC members and tertiary reviewers) are required by the review code of conduct to report if they inadvertently identified authors of a paper they are reviewing due to these policy violations (A – F). While efforts will be made to find alternatives so that the paper can still receive impartial reviews, this may not always be possible due to limitations. Ultimately, if by reviewer consensus, with confirmation by the TPC chairs, a submission cannot receive a sufficient number of fair and impartial reviews due to policy violations (A – F), the submission will be rejected. Reports from non-reviewers on awareness of author identities are unlikely to impact review outcomes unless the violation demonstrably affects the review process. The SIGGRAPH TPC chairs make final determinations on all policy violations and subsequent paper rejections.