International Conference For High Performance Computing Networking Storage And Analysis

International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC)

Conference positioning

International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC) is a top computer-science conference venue for high-performance computing, supercomputing, parallel systems, scientific computing, storage, and networks. It rewards an HPC paper with scale, performance portability, and scientific or systems impact. 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 SC / International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis as the target venue.
• A manuscript in high-performance computing 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: high-performance computing, supercomputing, parallel systems, scientific computing, storage, and networks.
• 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 SC'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 SC as a HPC flagship 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: high-performance computing, supercomputing, parallel systems, scientific computing, storage, and networks.
• Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: high-performance, computing, supercomputing, parallel, scientific, storage, networks, venue-specific, contribution, flagship.
• Official anchor domain: supercomputing.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 HPC flagship and the author can say why SC reviewers are the primary audience, not merely a convenient deadline.
• Closest roster neighbors to compare before final routing: ieee-acm-international-symposium- on-microarchitecture (MICRO), ieee-international-symposium-on-high-performance-computer- architecture (HPCA), acm-sigplan-symposium-on-principles-and-practice-of-parallel- programming (PPoPP), acm-international-symposium-on-high-performance-parallel-and- distributed-computing (HPDC). Break ties by contribution type, evidence shape, reviewer community, and the current official CFP from supercomputing.org.

SC-specific routing detail

• Prefer SC when the contribution is high-performance computing at scale: supercomputing systems, parallel applications, performance engineering, networking/storage for HPC, accelerators, or scientific workloads.
• Route architecture-only work to ISCA/HPCA, cross-layer PL/OS/architecture mechanisms to ASPLOS, and distributed cloud/HPC systems below supercomputing scale to HPDC.
• SC evidence should include scale, system configuration, application workload realism, performance portability, resource efficiency, and reproducibility of the HPC experiment.

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 SC, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: an HPC paper with scale, performance portability, and scientific or systems impact.
• 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://supercomputing.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 SC, 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 HPC flagship 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 SC reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.

Re-routing decision

If the paper misses SC'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] International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC)
[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>