For its 45th edition, the EUROGRAPHICS 2025 Full Papers Program will showcase innovative research in Computer Graphics and related areas. We invite submissions of new ideas and encourage all forms of research creativity and originality, with the ambition of setting the standard in the field and stimulating future trends. We encourage submissions from all areas related to Computer Graphics, including but not limited to: rendering, modeling, animation, generative AI, deep learning for graphics, simulation, geometry processing, image/video editing, fabrication, 3D printing, computational imaging, display technologies, graphics hardware, human-computer interaction, visualization, virtual and augmented reality.

In addition to novel methodologies and algorithms for Computer Graphics, EUROGRAPHICS welcomes submissions introducing new datasets and benchmarks, or documenting original perceptual and experimental studies that advance the field of Computer Graphics.

Reviewing Process

All submissions will undergo a double-blind two-step review process. Accepted full papers will be presented at EUROGRAPHICS 2025 and published in a special issue of the Eurographics journal Computer Graphics Forum as well as the EG Digital Library. Gold Open Access will be available with an extra publication fee that includes open access fee and support through the EG Digital Library.

At least one author needs to register and present in-person his or her paper. Participants of Eurographics 2025 will be able to attend presentations of latest advances in computer graphics and imaging from the research and industry experts. It is also going to be a great opportunity to meet with international researchers in the domain and socialize around the conference social events.

Submission Details

Electronic submission of all papers is mandatory and will be conducted using the Submission and Review Management (SRMv2). Papers must be written in English, must be anonymized, and must be formatted according to the Eurographics Computer Graphics Forum guidelines. The publication guidelines and LaTeX templates are available on SRMv2. Accepted papers must be presented orally in English at Eurographics 2025. Review of full papers is based on a double-blind reviewing approach, so please be sure to remove all personal data (such as authors, affiliations, etc.) from your submission. References to your own work should be made in the third person to maintain anonymity. Reviewers are asked to keep confidential all materials sent to them for evaluation.

There is no maximum length imposed on papers. However, papers should only be as long as they need to be, and not longer. Reviewers might rank submissions perceived as being either repetitive or unnecessarily long lower than they would score concisely written papers.

Authors of accepted papers will present a very short summary or a teaser during a fast-forward session. This presentation will be around 25 seconds and can be augmented by slides. To ensure a smooth organization, they will be asked to prepare a short video of the slides for this purpose, in two versions: one with the spoken text and one without. Details will be sent to accepted paper authors.

Plagiarism

A submission to the Eurographics Full Papers program should describe the original work of the authors. Authors must not use ideas or content originating from others without properly crediting their original sources. Note that such sources are not limited to peer-reviewed publications but also include patents, textbooks, technical reports, theses, unpublished work posted on arXiv, and other posts on the World Wide Web. Failure to comply with this requirement will be considered plagiarism and result in rejection.

Prior Art

Authors are expected to cite, discuss differences and novelty, and compare results, if applicable, with respect to relevant existing publications, provided they have been published in a peer-reviewed venue. This also applies to patents, which also undergo a professional reviewing process. But what about technical reports, and other non-peer-reviewed publications, such as technical reports or papers posted on arXiv, which we henceforth refer to as pre-publications? With the rapid progress of search engines and the increased perusal of arXiv papers by the scientific community, asking authors to thoroughly compare their work to these pre-publications imposes an unreasonable burden — a seemingly relevant report that is incomplete in its disclosure or validation might appear online shortly before the deadline. Although peer-reviewed publications are certainly not immune to these shortcomings, they have, at least, been judged sufficiently complete and valid by a group of peers. Consequently, authors are not required to discuss and compare their work with recent prepublications (arXiv, technical reports, theses, etc.), although they must properly cite those that inspired them (see “Plagiarism” above). Nevertheless, we encourage authors to mention all related works they are aware of as good academic practice dictates.

Note that with new works posted on arXiv on a daily basis, it is increasingly likely that reviewers might point out similarities between the submitted work and online reports that have been missed by the authors. In this case, authors of conditionally accepted papers should be prepared to cite these pre-publications in their final revision as concurrent work, without the burden of having to detail how their work compares to or differs from these pre-publications.

When authors cite previous work that they have authored, the citation should be in the third person to preserve anonymity. There are, however, situations where such prior work should not be cited. This is the case if these prior works correspond to prepublications of the submission (arXiv), with largely similar content. In this case, it must be ensured that no publicity related to the publication is available on the web.