ACM Sigmetrics 2017 submission - Information to the authors
This year the ACM Sigmetrics conference evolves to offer authors
As in previous years, all authors of accepted papers continue to benefit from the high visibility of presenting their work at the ACM Sigmetrics conference.
Overview of the review process:
1. Detailed description of the new revised process
Submissions: Paper submissions will be handled much like they are currently, except that there will be two submission deadlines this year (and following, that, one every three months).
Reviewing: To manage reviewing of the papers, we will maintain the structure of the current SIGMETRICS conference, with two PC chairs and a large program committee that is called upon to review papers.
The process for reviewing is the following:
Publication and Conference Organization: All papers that are accepted on time will be presented at the Sigmetrics conference in June 2017. This includes (1) papers submitted and accepted at the Fall deadline, (2) papers submitted and accepted at the Winter deadline which may be one-shot-revision initially submitted in the Fall. Note that papers submitted to the winter deadline and which receive a one-shot-revision will not appear at this year’s conference, but they will have the option to submit to any of the two following deadlines (expected to be in Spring and Summer 2017).
Abstracts: A one page abstract of each accepted paper and a two-page extended abstract of each poster will be included in a book of abstracts which will appear as a special issue of Performance Evaluation Review (PER). Currently all issues of PER are mailed in hardcopy to all SIGMETRICS members and are available from the ACM library. In addition, copies of the abstracts will be made available electronically to registered participants at the conference itself. Note that PER does NOT collect copyright forms and items included in PER are still eligible for publication elsewhere.
Other remarks: Note that as part of this proposal, a paper may not be published in PACM SIGMETRICS as a “journal only” publication without an associated conference submission (in all cases) and presentation (with the exception of travel restriction imposed by health and visa constraints). Authors in our community who wish to pursue this have the option to submit their paper to ACM TOMPECS.
As an author can I really expect quality reviews on a shorter time-scale?
The time-scale is not so different from previous SIGMETRICS year, and experience from PC chairs and members of the board suggest that the overall time for reviews is not a primary factor for quality. Basically, people spend 1-2 days on a review regardless of how long you give them and so longer review cycles provide no quantifiable benefit. On the other hand, SIGMETRICS remains a conference where papers are judged in a group, so you should expect conference-style review, only with the additional advantage of one-shot revision when it is appropriate.
Why would I not wait for the final deadline so I can present the most complete work?
There will certainly be a non-uniform distribution of submissions, but the other conferences that have moved in this direction have received a significant number of submissions during all periods of the year. There are significant advantages to submit early, including that (1) if you are planning for multiple submissions you could avoid a burst, and get the extra advantage of a paper already guaranteed (2) In case your paper falls into the one shot revision category, if suitably revised and resubmitted, it would still have a chance to appear in this year’s conference. (3) if your paper does not receive one-shot-revision but the reviews remain encouraging, you can resubmit faster. (4) depending on the other conferences you are considering for your work in general (to avoid conflicting deadlines, or plan for future submissions), an early deadline might make more sense.
Basically, the last periods allow for the work to appear faster and you have more time to prepare, but that’s one of the advantages in a multi-dimensional choice. We hope there are sufficient incentive year round. One important fact is that under no circumstances will the PC chairs adapt the bars depending on the date (e.g., accepting more papers in the fall or winter to either “fill the program” or on the contrary being more selective because the program is full). As an author that’s one less thing to worry about.
How likely is a paper going to be accepted *without* a one-shot-revision? As an author should I expect that outcome since a direct accept seems really hard?
This is a concern we share. Many journals end up rarely accepting papers without going through multiple stages always starting with major revision then something else. One factor might be that there is less time pressure and editors are looking to polish all aspects of the work. We do not want to encourage that. Note that there is a single shot with this revision. Note that for anything else, we continue to enforce sheperding when a paper is accepted for its technical content but require some claims to be adapted. We expect one-shot-revision to go towards specific kind of papers, such as a very exciting idea we really want presented at SIGMETRICS but with an unacceptable limitation. This is a way to encourage more work of great potential. PC chairs and PC members are all on board to make revision a useful exception as opposed to a rule. That also means that, as an author, you should submit papers carefully as few papers are going to get a revision than you would expect for a journal.
If I have a one-shot-revision, how can I manage the timing?
There will be guidelines and suggestions with the one-shot-revision to help you. Efforts will be made (such as extension of the winter deadline specifically for one-shot-revision paper), to make sure that you can present your work as soon as possible.
Won’t this lead to accepting more papers, thus lowering our acceptance rate and hurting the prestige of Sigmetrics? Does that mean that I am not guaranteed that my work will be presented in a single track?
The short answer is that this year we expect no difference at all in the conference format (it will remain single track). For this issue, and others, we encourage you to read a longer discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal, and the eventual consequence for SIGMETRICS, available at http://bit.ly/sigmpacm
Will there be a conference proceedings as in the past, in addition to the new PACM journal?
No, there will be no conference proceedings. Instead, the one page abstracts of accepted papers and two page extended abstracts of poster presentations will be included in a special issue of Performance Evaluation Review (PER) the same way the proceedings were distributed in the past. Both PACM and PER will be available through the ACM website. Papers opting out of PACM publication will be required to include a link to a publicly available version of the work on arXiv within the abstract they submit for PER.
Will papers accepted as posters be included in any way in the PACM journal?
No. But posters - in addition to being shown and discussed at the conference - will also be appearing as two-page extended abstracts in the special issue PER containing the converence abstracts.
How will the new journal differ from a conference proceedings?
Compared to prior years, they will be very similar (formatting aside). The main difference is that there are no limitation on page length for the appendix which can only contain additional content justifying correctness of claims found in the main body of the paper (complete proof and/or experimental evidence required to make any claim).
Thanks, but I still have an unresolved question about the process or a specific concern as an author for submitting this year, is there someone I can contact?
Of course! You may contact any PC chair or member of the board, but as one of the PC chairs who was leading this effort, it’s probably best to contact first Augustin Chaintreau <email@example.com> for any inquiry about the process of this year SIGMETRICS conference.