Acm Conference On Recommender Systems

ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys)

Conference positioning

ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) is a top computer-science conference venue for recommendation, ranking, user modeling, evaluation, fairness, and deployed recommender behavior. It rewards a recommender paper with offline metrics, user or platform context, and leakage-aware evaluation. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.

Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.

When to trigger

• The author names RecSys / ACM Conference on Recommender Systems as the target venue.
• A manuscript in recommendation needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
• The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
• The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.

Scope & topic fit

• Core fit: recommendation, ranking, user modeling, evaluation, fairness, and deployed recommender behavior.
• Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
• The paper should explain why the result matters to RecSys's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
• Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
• If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.

Venue-specific calibration

• Reviewer lens: Treat RecSys as a recommender systems venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
• Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
• Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: recommendation, ranking, user modeling, evaluation, fairness, and deployed recommender behavior.
• Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: recommendation, ranking, user, modeling, evaluation, fairness, deployed, recommender, behavior, venue-specific, contribution, recsys.
• Official anchor domain: recsys.acm.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.

Close-neighbor routing guardrail

• Use this profile only when the manuscript's central contribution is genuinely in recommender systems and the author can say why RecSys reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
• Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing: acm-symposium-on-user-interface- software-and-technology (UIST), acm-symposium-on-operating-systems-principles (SOSP). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from recsys.acm.org.

RecSys-specific routing detail

• Prefer RecSys when the paper's main claim is about recommendation: ranking objectives, user/item modeling, counterfactual/offline evaluation, fairness/diversity, feedback loops, platform behavior, or deployed recommender impact.
• Use SOSP only when the central research contribution is a systems abstraction, infrastructure architecture, storage/distributed-systems mechanism, or workload-management problem; a recommender workload alone does not make the paper systems-first.
• Compare with SIGIR/WSDM/KDD for search, web mining, or data-mining emphasis, CHI/CSCW when user/community outcomes dominate, and ML venues when the method is a general learning advance rather than recommender-specific evidence.

Method & evidence bar

• Build the artifact or prototype far enough that the core design can be measured under realistic workloads.
• Use appropriate baselines, sensitivity analyses, and workload characterization; systems reviewers look for hidden bottlenecks.
• Separate engineering effort from research contribution: name the abstraction, mechanism, or tradeoff.
• For RecSys, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a recommender paper with offline metrics, user or platform context, and leakage-aware evaluation.
• Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.

Structure & house style

• Start from a systems pain point and show why existing abstractions fail.
• Use evaluation sections that answer research questions, not a tour of every benchmark run.
• Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
• The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
• Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.

Official-cycle checklist

• Open the live official venue page: https://recsys.acm.org/
• Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
• Confirm the review workflow and portal: the current USENIX/ACM/IEEE author kit, artifact policy, and submission system.
• Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at RecSys, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
• The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
• Related work includes the nearest current-cycle recommender systems papers and explains the technical delta.
• The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
• The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.

Common desk-reject triggers

• Toy implementation or microbenchmark-only evidence for a systems claim.
• No comparison to mature systems or no explanation of deployment constraints.
• Performance gains with unclear workload representativeness.
• Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
• A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving RecSys reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.

Re-routing decision

If the paper misses RecSys's bar, compare against acm-symposium-on-operating-systems-principles / usenix-symposium-on-operating-systems-design-and-implementation / usenix-symposium-on-networked-systems-design-and-implementation / acm-sigcomm. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>