Submission Information

Submission Site

Papers can be submitted at

Submission Guidelines

Please make sure that your paper satisfies ALL of the following requirements before it is submitted:

  • The paper must be original material that has not been previously published in another conference or journal, nor is currently under review by another conference or journal. Note that you may submit material presented previously at a workshop without copyrighted proceedings.
  • Your submission is limited to ten (10) 8.5″x11″ single spaced, double-column pages, using 10pt or larger font, not including references. There is no page limit for references. Your submission must follow the format as demonstrated in acmart-sigplanproc-template.tex from the templates provided by SIGPLAN. Submissions not adhering to these submission guidelines may be outright rejected at the discretion of the program chairs. (Please make sure your paper prints satisfactorily on 8.5″x11″ paper: this is especially important for submissions from countries where A4 paper is standard.)
  • Papers are to be submitted for double-blind review. Blind reviewing of papers will be done by the program committee, assisted by outside referees. Author names as well as hints of identity are to be removed from the submitted paper. Use care in naming your files. Source file names, e.g., Joe.Smith.dvi, are often embedded in the final output as readily accessible comments. In addition, do not omit references to provide anonymity, as this leaves the reviewer unable to grasp the context. Instead, if you are extending your own work, you need to reference and discuss the past work in third person, as if you were extending someone else’s research. We realize in doing this that for some papers it will still be obvious who the authors are. In this case, the submission will not be penalized as long a concerted effort was made to reference and describe the relationship to the prior work as if you were extending someone else’s research. For example, if your name is Joe Smith:

In previous work [1,2], Smith presented a new branch predictor for …. In this paper, we extend their work by …

[1] Joe Smith, “A Simple Branch Predictor for …,” Proceedings of CGO 2004.
[2] Joe Smith, “A More Complicated Branch Predictor for …,” Proceedings of CGO 2004.

  • Please identify any PC member with whom there is a conflict of interest using the Groups feature of the EasyChair submission page.
  • Your submission must be formatted for black-and-white printers and not color printers. This is especially true for plots and graphs in the paper.
  • Please make sure that the labels on your graphs are readable without the aid of a magnifying glass. Typically the default font sizes on the graph axes in a program like Microsoft Excel are too small.
  • Please number the pages.
  • The paper must be submitted in PDF. We cannot accept any other format, and we must be able to print the document just as we receive it. We strongly suggest that you use only the four widely-used printer fonts: Times, Helvetica, Courier and Symbol.
  • Please make sure that the output has been formatted for printing on LETTER size paper. If generating the paper using “dvips”, use the option “-P cmz -t letter”, and if that is not supported, use “-t letter”.
  • The Artifact Evaluation process is run by a separate committee whose task is to assess how the artifacts support the work described in the papers. Authors of accepted papers have the option of submitting their artifacts for evaluation within two weeks of paper acceptance. To ease the organization of the AE committee, we kindly ask authors to indicate at the time they submit the paper, whether they are interested in submitting an artifact. Papers that go through the Artifact Evaluation process successfully will receive a seal of approval printed on the papers themselves. Additional information is available on the CGO AE web page. Authors of accepted papers are encouraged, but not required, to make these materials publicly available upon publication of the proceedings, by including them as “source materials” in the ACM Digital Library.
  • Authors must register all their conflicts on the paper submission site. Conflicts are needed to ensure appropriate assignment of reviewers. If a paper is found to have an undeclared conflict that causes a problem OR if a paper is found to declare false conflicts in order to abuse or “game” the review system, the paper may be rejected.

    Please declare a conflict of interest with the following people for any author of your paper:

    • Your Ph.D. advisor(s), post-doctoral advisor(s), Ph.D. students, and post-doctoral advisees, forever.
    • Family relations by blood or marriage, or their equivalent, forever (if they might be potential reviewers).
    • People with whom you have collaborated in the last FIVE years, including:
      • co-authors of accepted/rejected/pending papers.
      • co-PIs on accepted/rejected/pending grant proposals.
    • Funders (decision-makers) of your research grants, and researchers whom you fund.
    • People (including students) who shared your primary institution(s) in the last FIVE years.
    • Other relationships, such as close personal friendship, that you think might tend to affect your judgement or be seen as doing so by a reasonable person familiar with the relationship.
    • “Service” collaborations such as co-authoring a report for a professional organization, serving on a program committee, or co-presenting tutorials, do not themselves create a conflict of interest. Co-authoring a paper that is a compendium of various projects with no true collaboration among the projects does not constitute a conflict among the authors of the different projects.

On the other hand, there may be others not covered by the above with whom you believe a COI exists, for example, an ongoing collaboration which has not yet resulted in the creation of a paper or proposal. Please report such COIs; however, you may be asked to justify them. Please be reasonable. For example, you cannot declare a COI with a reviewer just because that reviewer works on topics similar to or related to those in your paper. The PC Chair may contact co-authors to explain a COI whose origin is unclear.

We hope to draw most reviewers from the PC and the ERC, but others from the community may also write reviews. Please declare all your conflicts (not just restricted to the PC and ERC). When in doubt, contact the program co-chairs.