I'm a professional game developer looking to write a few research papers on various topics. They mostly involve graphics techniques so I was planning on starting with the Journal of Computer Graphics Techniques when I’m ready to start submitting the paper to publications.

These topics vary in complexity though, and while I haven’t heard of peers using these techniques, and I haven’t found reference to them on the Internet. There are some for which I’m not sure whether they are paper-worthy or not because the write-up would literally be one to two pages probably.

Is there any sort of metric to gauge topics in this way?

  • 1
    I don't know about the particular journal mentioned, but I think it's very likely that if you review the literature, develop a novel technique (or extend an existing technique in an interesting way) and then apply it to enough cases to understand its costs and benefits, you should be able to write considerably more than 2 pages about it.
    – Tim
    Commented May 4, 2015 at 18:48
  • 1
    Good point. I've started on the smallest and yeah, there are some details to explore that I hadn't considered ahead of time.
    – Alan Wolfe
    Commented May 4, 2015 at 18:59

1 Answer 1


You've chosen a journal that looks like it is well suited to your background and topics.

By itself, the length of your paper is not related to whether it is important or publishable.

There are three things you can do to test whether your potential topics/papers are worth writing and submitting. First, read many articles in this journal, similar journals, and also conferences. You aren't just looking for articles on the same topic or technique as yours. Instead, you are learning about what constitutes a good research paper in your field. Based on your reading, write a detailed outline of your proposed paper(s), and also an abstract.

The second thing you can do is to write a version of your paper(s) as a "Working Paper" and then circulate them to peers or colleagues for feedback. You can post this to Arxiv and post links on social media or mailing lists to get broader feedback. This approach has two advantages. You sometimes only know the value of a research paper after you finish writing it. And you'll get the most useful feedback from people when they have a finished paper in their hands, as opposed to reacting to a concept.

The third thing you can do, building on the previous, is to submit a paper or two (each revised based on earlier feedback) to a journal or conference, and then learn from reviewer comments if they reject you.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .