ITCS Skills
A 12-skill depth pack for ITCS (Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science) submissions published open-access in LIPIcs (Schloss Dagstuhl): the conceptual-novelty selection test that defines the venue, the single early-September annual deadline, lightweight double-blind HotCRP submission with full proofs, no rebuttal round, generous page budgets, the Graduating Bits culture, and the LIPIcs camera
Skills in this plugin
11- ▌ Itcs Submission · brycewang-stanfordUse when auditing an ITCS submission for HotCRP readiness — the early-September abstract-then-paper deadlines, single-column >= 11pt format with no hard page limit, the first-10-pages merits window, complete proofs of all central claims, the lightweight double-blind sweep, and the archival-prior-publication check.
- ▌ Itcs Experiments · brycewang-stanfordUse when deciding what counts as evidence for an ITCS theory claim — proofs as the primary evidence, worked examples and separations that make a model concrete, and the rare, well-scoped illustrative computation or simulation — and how to keep any computational content checkable and subordinate to the mathematics.
- ▌ Itcs Camera Ready · brycewang-stanfordUse when preparing an accepted ITCS paper for open-access publication in LIPIcs — switching to the lipics-v2021 document class, de-anonymizing, completing LIPIcs metadata (ACM CCS, keywords, funding), folding in reviewer-noted fixes, and passing the Schloss Dagstuhl production checks.
- ▌ Itcs Related Work · brycewang-stanfordUse when positioning an ITCS paper against the theory literature — writing the delta that proves the model/question is genuinely new, covering the right STOC/FOCS/SODA/CCC/TCC lanes, and staying honest under lightweight double-blind where the reference list is not anonymized.
- ▌ Itcs Supplementary · brycewang-stanfordUse when splitting an ITCS paper's content between the body, the appendix, and the arXiv/ECCC/ePrint full version — deciding by what a reviewer must verify, so no central proof lives only in a preprint the PC is not obligated to read, while keeping the first-10-pages merits window clean.
- ▌ Itcs Writing Style · brycewang-stanfordUse when drafting or revising an ITCS paper's abstract, introduction, and technical presentation so the conceptual innovation lands before any theorem, the model is motivated as a lens rather than a tweak, scope and limitations are owned up front, and complete proofs are deferred cleanly — matching the ITCS emphasis on new ideas over technical depth.
- ▌ Itcs Review Process · brycewang-stanfordUse to model the ITCS reviewing pipeline — a program committee plus external reviewers, conceptual-novelty weighting, lightweight double-blind, no author-response/rebuttal phase, and a single accept/reject decision — and to understand where the (limited) author leverage actually is.
- ▌ Itcs Author Response · brycewang-stanfordUse to operate under the reality that ITCS has no rebuttal or author-response phase — pre-empting reviewer objections inside the submission, then handling the post-decision situation (camera-ready window on accept, or rerouting and reusing the reviews on reject) since there is no revise-and-resubmit.
- ▌ Itcs Reproducibility · brycewang-stanfordUse to make an ITCS paper's mathematics independently checkable — complete proofs of every central claim, self-contained definitions, pinned dependencies on prior results, and a matching full version on arXiv/ECCC/ePrint — the pure-theory analogue of a reproducibility package.
- ▌ Itcs Topic Selection · brycewang-stanfordUse when deciding whether a theoretical-computer-science result belongs at ITCS or should be routed to STOC, FOCS, SODA, CCC, ICALP, TCC, or a journal, and when distinguishing ITCS from its depth-first siblings by the conceptual-novelty test — is this a new question, model, or connection worth asking, rather than the deepest theorem of the year.
- ▌ Itcs Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanfordUse to adapt the idea of an "artifact" to a pure-theory venue — at ITCS there is no artifact-evaluation track, no code, and no badges; the analogue is making every claim independently verifiable through complete proofs in the submitted PDF and a matching public full version, plus checkable finite objects for any computational content.