For Authors

Important Dates

Full Paper
Submission Deadline:

27 February 2025

Notification to authors:
30 March 2025

Camera ready version:
20 April 2025

Author Registration Deadline:
20 April 2025

Conference dates:
02 – 04 June 2025

General chair
Jürgen Mottok
Georg Hagel


Dieter Landes

International Program Committee
Alexander Bartel
Paula Bartel
Andreas Gegenfurtner
Christian Wolff
Dieter Landes
Florian Hauser
Friedhelm Stappert
Georg Hagel
Gero Wedemann
Horia-Nicolai Teodorescu
Joerg Abke
Lynsay Shepherd
Marco Kuhrmann
Matthias Längrich
Patricia Brockmann
Ramin Tavakoli Kolagari
Thanwadee Sunetnanta
Ralf Reißing
Axel Böttcher
Volkhard Pfeiffer
Rebecca Reuter
Isabel John
Maria Pinto-Albuquerque

Special Session Eye Tracking
Florian Hauser
Jürgen Mottok


OTH Regensburg
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Mottok

Publicly funded project

Preparation of Contributions

Please follow the instructions mentioned on the site: *link will follow*

Submission of Contributions

Contribution Types

Full papers (8-10 pages): documenting results and findings, where the research presented has followed established research methods.

Short papers (up to 5 pages): reporting novel results that have not been fully evaluated.

Page limits include all text, references, appendices, and figures.


Create a user account on the Conference Submission Server on
Easy Chair.

Submit your contribution as a PDF-file.

Wait for the review results.

If accepted upload your final paper as PDF-file and your source files (Word, LaTeX, images, etc.).

Accepted authors will be sent the ACM rights management form and complete instructions. All rights management forms must be submitted and approved four weeks prior to your conference.

Register for the conference.

All accepted papers will be published as conference proceedings, if you:

  • respect the final deadline,
  • use the ACM-sigconf Template,
  • have submitted and approved the ACM rights management form in time,
  • have registered at least one author for the conference until the author registration deadline.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

  1. Obligations of Authors
    A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
    The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
    Submitting the same manuscript to more than one publication concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
    Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design,execution, or interpretation of the reported work.
    All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  2. Obligations of Reviewers
    All submitted papers are subject to double-blind review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the are a of the paper.
    The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, significance, originality, readability and language.
    The possible decisions include acceptance or rejection.
    Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
    Articles may be rejected without review if they are obviously not suitable for publication.
    The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright in fringement and plagiarism.
    The reviewers evaluate manuscripts for the irintellectual content without regard to race, gender,sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
    The staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
    Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
    Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents and are reviewed by anonymous staff.
    A reviewer should also call to the publisher’s attentionany substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.