Panels are forums for experts in a particular area to have a guided, interactive dialog with the audience about a specific topic. A good panel submission proposes an interesting topic, identifies panelists who will bring diverse opinions to the discussion, and outlines a proposed structure for the panel discussion itself. Some reasons panel proposals are rejected:
1. The panel organizer has not confirmed specific speakers or has identified speakers but not clearly conveyed why those speakers are the best ones to address the proposed topic.
2. The proposed panel topic is of very narrow interest and will only appeal to a very small number of attendees.
3. The proposed panel topic is too broad or not defined well enough to engender a focused discussion.
4. The proposed panel lacks structure, or the structure fails to allow significant audience interaction. A panel that consists primarily of prepared statements by the panelists will be rejected.
5. The jury believes the panelists do not offer sufficiently diverse viewpoints.
Jurors are asked to evaluate your submission using four criteria: Concept, Novelty, Interest, and Quality. The final submission score is based on a combination of these factors. For example, a high-quality panel that has broad appeal and is unlike other recent SIGGRAPH panels has a good chance of acceptance, while a poorly motivated submission of interest to few attendees (or that duplicates recent panels) will probably be rejected.
How exceptional are the ideas, problems, solutions, aesthetics, etc. presented in this submission? How coherently does the submission convey its overall concept? Is the concept similar to existing ones, or does it stand out? This criterion is particularly applicable to submissions that put together existing technologies into a single product (for example, demos, animations, art pieces). Submissions of this type, where the individual technologies are not necessarily new but their combination is, are evaluated on both the final product and how well proposed technologies integrate to meet the desired goals. Many submissions in this area are rejected because they do what existing systems do, and they do not demonstrate that the proposed approach leads to better results.
How new and fresh is this work? Is it a new, ground-breaking approach to an old problem, or is it an existing approach with a slightly new twist? You must first demonstrate to the jury that your work is sufficiently different from existing approaches. Second, you should evaluate you work in the context of other approaches where appropriate: Is it faster? Easier to use? Does it give better results? Is it more accurate? Many submissions are rejected either because the work is too similar to existing work or because the submission materials did not convince the jury that the improvements were substantial enough.
Will conference attendees want to see this? Will it inspire them? Are the results or approach appealing to a broad audience? This is partly a measure of how broad the potential audience is and partly a measure of the overall clarity and novelty of the submission. A submission in a very niche area is more likely to be accepted if the results are exceptionally better than what exists already, or if the proposed solution might be applicable to other areas.
Quality, Craft, and Completeness
This is a measure of how well-written the abstract is and the quality of the supporting materials. The abstract must effectively communicate both the problem and the solution in enough detail and clarity that the jury can evaluate it. You must also convince the jury that your solution works. Many submissions are rejected because, while the problem and solution seemed interesting, the materials did not convince the jury that the solution had actually been implemented and evaluated. If your submission has an animation, simulation, or interactive component, then including a video is essential.