Review Criteria

The following review criteria are considered by editors and referees when reviewing a JoCG submissions. A paper that appears in JoCG should be rated highly on several of the criteria below. Note that these criteria apply to both theoretical or applied/engineering/experimental papers.

Paper type

Is the paper a

• first step (opens a new area)?
• last step (closes an important area)?
• giant step (makes essential progress)?
• none of the above?

Is the paper

• a theoretical contribution?
• an experience paper/experimental paper?
• an applied paper that shows an interesting application of geometric algorithms and concepts to other fields?
• or a combination of some of the above?

Relevance

In what respect is the paper relevant to the scope of JoCG? Is it directly relevant for the design, use, analysis, or implementation of algorithms for geometric problems? May it have indirect implications for the complexity of geometric problems?

Foundational/conceptual contribution

Does the paper introduce a new model, new notion, new definition, new approach, novel implementation, or a novel application? Note the significance and reasons for this novelty or note the absence of such a novelty.

Technical contribution

Does the paper make

• an introduction of a new technique?
• a novel use of known technique?
• a talented use of known technique?
• a traditional use of known technique?
• a trivial use of technical knowledge?

Relation to open problems

Does the paper solve completely/partially an open question? How important is this question? Is the question central/important/interesting/legitimate/stupid?. How much effort has been invested in solving it and by whom?

Community interest

Is the paper potentially interesting to the whole community, to a major field (e.g., meshing), to everyone in a restricted area (e.g., pseudotriangulations), or interesting only to the authors?