Papers are between 4 and 10 pages long and present substantial new research to the field. They are held to rigorous standards of contribution and evaluation. Accepted papers will be presented at the conference in talks (15-20 mins), published in the proceedings and are also archived in a scholarly digital library (IEEE Computer Society digital library). The allotted presentation time will depend upon the length and content of the paper.
Papers are also eligible for one of a number of best paper awards which will be announced for both S&T and AMH track during the conference.
Note, that there is only one category for papers - there is no distinction between full and short papers. The acceptance for publication will be partly based on the contribution per page of the paper. For example, a paper in eight pages will be expected to have more contribution than one with four pages.
Examples of topics appropriate for a presentation in fewer pages are:
Posters provide an interactive forum where authors can present work to conference attendees during a poster session. Accepted posters will be displayed on large boards (approximately 3 feet by 4 feet). Poster authors will also have one minute to describe their poster during a “poster teasers” preview before any of the poster sessions.
Authors wishing to present a poster must submit a two-page poster submission describing the research to be presented in the poster. Poster submissions are reviewed by the Program Committee via the same procedure as papers, but they are judged much more leniently because of the short length and because they do not count as an ISMAR publication. Note that poster submissions will be published in the conference proceedings, and archived in the associated digital library. We encourage poster submissions on new work that is still in progress, or small, highly focused results. The main criteria are novelty and usefulness to the ISMAR community.
Papers and Posters templates (TEX, DOC) are available here:
All materials will be submitted electronically through the Precision Conference website (which will be ready early March, 2013) at:
If you already have an account with that system, please use that account to submit your materials. Otherwise, create a new account. After log-in, select the S&T area for a new submission:
As part of the submission you will be able to choose a major topic and a list of associated keywords.
After you submitted your paper or poster, the following process takes place:
ISMAR is a high-quality conference with a competitive submission process. In 2012, ISMAR accepted only 26.7% of the papers submitted. For information on past conferences including acceptance rates and best paper awards see the ismar.net website. ISMAR has a rigorous reviewing process that is similar to the processes used by ACM SIGGRAPH and ACM UIST. Every submitted paper and poster is subjected to this process.
Reviewing: We have two tiers of reviewers: the Program Committee and a pool of reviewers. Each paper is assigned to a member of the Program Committee, and that person will procure at least four reviews from the reviewers or additional external reviewers, in addition to providing a meta review. For posters, three reviews are obtained plus the additional meta reviews.
Papers are from 4 to 10 pages long and are held to rigorous standards of contribution and evaluation. They must describe a novel contribution to the field and provide the evaluations necessary to prove the claims of the contribution. The length of the paper should correspond to the presented contribution. See the section below, “Writing a good ISMAR paper”, for more guidelines. However, these are only hints, the final merit of a paper will be determined by the reviewers and the Program Committee.
Posters are reviewed through the same procedure that papers are, but they are much more leniently judged due to space limitations and because they do not count as a publication. We encourage posters on new work that is still in progress, or small, highly focused results. The main criteria are novelty and usefulness to the ISMAR community.
Rebuttals: After all reviews are in, the website will be open for authors to read their reviews and provide a short rebuttal (about 500 words). The purpose of the rebuttal is to correct factual errors in the review or clarify questions the reviewers had. No new material, results or data may be included in the rebuttal. Any such information will be deleted. After the rebuttal period, the assigned Program Committee member will prepare a recommendation for the PC meeting, taking into account reviews, rebuttal and any further discussion by the reviewers.
Then the Program Committee and program chairs will meet in person to discuss the papers and posters and determine which to accept. We have two different program committees for paper/posters: one for the S&T track and the other for the AMH track.
Best paper awards are selected by an independent committee from the accepted papers. Criteria for selection include the grading obtained through the reviews, the novelty of the work, and the quality of the presentation.
Also see the Reviewing Guidelines for more information.
If your submission is accepted, the following steps are required:
Upload the final version to the same site you submitted you original paper/poster by August, 7, 2013.
Use the "Final Submission Form" to provide your final version and any supplementary material such as video files, poster teaser slides.
In the preparation of the final submission, follow the formatting and submission guidelines here:
Ensure that you are using the correct formatting and submit the IEEE copyright form. Otherwise, your contribution might not be included in the proceedings.
Presentations of Science and Technology full papers are assigned to one of oral sessions at the conference (this section is subject to be updated).
The printed posters should have A0 size (about 840mm x 1200mm) or smaller, either portrait or landscape. Portrait will work better with the available poster boards.
Also, prepare a 1-slide teaser for the poster teaser presentation. There will be one minute to present the teaser.
A good ISMAR submission will result in both a respectable document for the proceedings and a good conference talk. As an author, you should ask yourself the following questions before writing your paper. Submissions that do not provide good answers to these questions are unlikely to be accepted.
The most common motivation for publishing a paper is to present a solution to a problem. When doing so, try to state all your constraints and assumptions. This is an area where it can be invaluable to have someone who is not intimately familiar with your work read the paper. Include a crisp description of the problem in the abstract and try to suggest it in the title. The choice of Program Committee member assigned to the paper is based almost entirely on these items.
ISMAR papers often focus on a certain aspect of Mixed and Augmented Reality systems. The following list includes some example topics, but does not represent an exhaustive list of all topics. We welcome any new idea beyond the usual range of areas.
Interaction Methods: Does the paper propose a novel interaction method? Does it present different use cases and applications for it? Can it demonstrate that the method performs better than other known ones?
User Interface & Human Factors: Does the paper describe how Mixed and Augmented Reality is improving a user interface design, human task performance or perception?
Tracking and Pose Estimation: Does the paper describe a novel method that is more robust in difficult conditions (lighting, outdoor, fast motion)? Is it a new, clever combination of different sensors? Does it provide more information for use in interaction and rendering?
Rendering and Visualization: Does the paper describe a novel, improved method for realistic integration of virtual graphics into a mixed scene? Is it faster or more accurate than known methods? Does it present a novel way of presenting information about the real world?
Displays and Input devices: Does the paper describe a novel display (e.g., visual or aural)? Does it describe a novel input device that provides different input modalities, is easier to use and deploy or more precise?
Applications: Is the paper proposing a new application of Mixed and Augmented Reality in a specific domain? Are you providing a new understanding of usage patterns and social behavior of a deployed AR application?
What are the relevant published works in your problem area? What deficiencies in their approaches are you trying to overcome? How does the new approach differ from previously published results? Don't expect the reviewers to know this information without your telling them in the paper, as they are unlikely to remember the precise details of all the relevant literature. Make specific comparisons between your work and that described in the references; don't just compile a list of vaguely related papers.
Based on your problem statement, what did you accomplish? You are responsible for proving that the problem is sufficiently addressed. Include pictures, statistics, or whatever is required to make your case. If you find this part of the paper difficult to write, perhaps the work is not yet finished and the paper should be deferred until next year.
The following describes some typical evaluations methods for different kinds of papers. This list is not exhaustive, but provides some hints as to what can help to present your contribution.
Interaction Methods: How usable is the method or system? What is the performance of users (e.g. completion time, error rate, learning curve) compared to a previous interface developed for a similar task?
User Interface & Human Factors: Is the improvement or effect described well supported through evaluations? Was the experimental design appropriate to your solution? Were sample size, statistical evaluation, and presentation and conclusions appropriate?
Tracking and Pose Estimation: How robust is your system? Can it deal with difficult input including light conditions, fast motion, occlusions? How fast is it and on which hardware? How does it compare to known state-of-the-art systems? It is also a good idea to use a standard data set to make the results comparable to other publications, or make your test data sets available for other authors.
Rendering and Visualization: Is the output quality of your system superior to previous methods? Is it faster or capable to operate at real-time rates? What hardware and sensors does it require? For visualization, what use cases does it cover? What amount or complexity of data can it deal with?
Displays and Input devices: What are the performance specifications of the display? For example, for a visual display does it work in indoor/outdoor, strong light conditions, what is the field of view, and is it multi-user capable? What is the hardware/software required to re-create it? What are the specifications of the input device? Can it be used in a mobile setting?
Applications: How did you design the system, what was the input from the application domain? Was the system tested by end users in the application domain? Did it improve their performance? Did it create new opportunities to improve the work methods?
What are your new ideas or results? If you don't have at least one new idea, you don't have a publishable paper. Can your results be applied anywhere outside of your project? If not, the paper is probably too special-purpose for ISMAR. On the other hand, beware of trying to write a paper with too large a scope.
The question that generates a large amount of discussion at the Program Committee meeting is whether a paper is complete. If the paper presents an algorithm or technique, an experienced practitioner in the field should be able to implement it using the paper and its references. If the paper claims to present a faster or more efficient way of implementing an established technique, it must contain enough detail to redo the experiment on competing implementations. When you quote numbers, be sure that they are not misleading—state clearly whether they were measured, simulated, or derived, and how you did the measurements, simulations, or derivations. For example, CPU time measurements are meaningless unless the reader is told the machine and configuration on which they were obtained.
Many large, poorly written papers contain a good paper trying to get out. It is the author's responsibility, not the reviewer's, to discover this paper and turn it into the submission. If you have addressed a single, practical problem, don't try to generalize it for the purposes of publication. If you have a formal theory or elaborate architecture, don't include all the vagaries of the implementation unless they are critical to the utility of the theory. Don't include the contents of your user's manual; instead, describe the model or functionality achieved. You should assume your audience has a working knowledge of user-interface development and access to the major journals in computer science, electrical engineering, and psychology. A short conference paper can only present a few concise ideas well.
While ISMAR papers are judged primarily as technical papers, some consideration is given to how suitable the topic is for a conference presentation. Think of how you would present your ideas, and how big the audience is likely to be. Papers that have a small number of concisely stated new ideas and that are visually interesting tend to appeal to a large audience and be easy to present. As recent conferences clearly show, these criteria do not eliminate papers that have taxonomies or strong theoretical content, or appeal to a specialized audience, if they contain significant new ideas.
You can also find the full list of papers previously published at ISMAR in the IEEE Computer Society digital library. Furthermore, the ismar.net website lists past best paper awards, which are good examples of great ISMAR papers.
Part of this document was adapted from the UIST Author Guideline, which was last updated in February 2011 by Maneesh Agrawala and Scott Klemmer (using material provided by Saul Greenberg), who inherited it from François Guimbretière, who inherited it from Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, who inherited it from Ravin Balakrishnan and Chia Shen, who inherited it from Ken Hinckley and Pierre Wellner, who inherited it from Dan Olsen, who inherited it from Steve Feiner, who inherited it from Joe Konstan, who inherited it from Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, who inherited it from Ari Rapkin, who inherited it from Beth Mynatt, who inherited it from George Robertson, who inherited it from Marc H. Brown, who inherited it from George Robertson, who got lots of help on it from Steve Feiner, Brad Myers, Jock Mackinlay, Mark Green, Randy Pausch, Pierre Wellner, and Beth Mynatt.