# Kdd Submission > Use when auditing a KDD submission for readiness in either cycle, covering Research vs ADS track declaration, OpenReview profile completeness for all authors, the ACM sigconf 8-content-page budget, double-blind checks, in-paper artifact references, resubmission declarations, and desk-reject triggers specific to ACM SIGKDD. - Skill: `brycewang-stanford/kdd-submission` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add brycewang-stanford/kdd-submission` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/brycewang-stanford/kdd-submission/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - Author: brycewang-stanford (https://skillmd.com/u/brycewang-stanford) - Updated: 2026-08-19 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/brycewang-stanford/kdd-submission --- # KDD Submission Run this audit twice: once when the abstract is registered, once before the full-paper deadline. KDD's abstract and paper deadlines are about a week apart in each cycle (2026 Cycle 1: July 24 / July 31, 2025; Cycle 2: February 1 / February 8, 2026, all AoE), and several failure modes below are only fixable in that gap. Reopen the current track CFP first — every number here is a 2026-cycle anchor, not a permanent rule. ## Track and cycle declaration - One paper, one track: the same work may not go to the Research Track and the Applied Data Science Track simultaneously. If the team is still arguing about track choice at submission week, run `kdd-topic-selection` before anything else. - Confirm which cycle the deadline belongs to. A team planning around "the KDD deadline" without naming the cycle is planning around the wrong date half the time. - Resubmissions from a prior cycle's Resubmit decision must be flagged in the form, must carry the previous OpenReview forum id, and must prepend a one-page summary of changes as the first page of the PDF. Omitting the summary page wastes the resubmission advantage. ## OpenReview profile gate KDD 2026 required a **complete OpenReview profile for every listed author**, not just the submitter: institutional affiliations covering at least the past five years, homepage, DBLP link where prior publications exist, ORCID, advisors, and recent publications. Incomplete co-author profiles are a pre-deadline blocker that no one person can fix alone — chase them at abstract time, not on deadline night. ## Format audit The Research Track submission is **8 content pages**, followed by references and an optional appendix, in the double-column ACM format: ```latex % KDD 2026 Research Track recommended setting (verify against the current CFP) \documentclass[sigconf,anonymous,review]{acmart} % - sigconf: ACM conference two-column layout % - anonymous: strips author block for double-blind review % - review: adds line numbers reviewers cite in their reports % Do NOT tweak \baselineskip, margins, or font sizes; ACM/TAPS tooling and % chairs both detect a modified acmart. ``` - Content beyond page 8 that is not references or appendix is a desk-level risk; move it or cut it, never squeeze it. - Anonymity must survive the appendix and the referenced repository: author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, grant numbers, institutional dataset names, and git history are all leak surfaces. - Reference the code/data repository **inside the PDF**: KDD's rebuttal and discussion phases forbid hyperlinks, so a repository not cited at submission time is invisible to reviewers forever. - Complete the generative-AI disclosure in the submission form if any such tool touched the text or the work; ACM's authorship policy also governs who may appear as an author. ## Desk-reject and severity table | Trigger | Track affected | Severity | Fixable after deadline? | |---|---|---|---| | Missing post-launch performance quantification | ADS | Desk reject per the 2026 CFP | No | | Content pages over the budget | Both | Desk-level | No | | Identity leak in PDF, appendix, or repo | Both | Desk-level or chair flag | No | | Incomplete co-author OpenReview profile | Both | Submission blocked or flagged | Only before deadline | | Undeclared resubmission of a Resubmit paper | Both | Loses resubmission standing | No | | Same paper in Research and ADS | Both | Rejection of both | No | | Repository link absent from PDF | Both | Not fatal, but unrepairable in rebuttal | No | ## Final-week sequence 1. Freeze the track and cycle declaration; verify the OpenReview group id matches (e.g., a `Research_Track_Cycle_2` group is not the ADS group). 2. Sweep all co-author profiles against the completeness list above. 3. Rebuild the PDF from a clean acmart checkout; confirm 8 content pages and that the appendix starts after the references. 4. Anonymize the artifact: fresh repo without history, no institutional paths, README free of names; cite it in the paper body. 5. For ADS: point at the exact section and table quantifying post-launch performance — if a reviewer cannot find it in 30 seconds, neither will the desk check. 6. Register the abstract early in the week; upload the paper with hours, not minutes, of margin against AoE. ## Vignette: an ADS submission that nearly desk-rejected itself A payments team submits their deployed risk model to the ADS track. The draft's evaluation section leads with offline AUC across four benchmark datasets — strong work, but the post-launch numbers sit in a single sentence inside the conclusion ("since launch, chargebacks decreased"). Under the 2026 ADS rule this reads as unquantified deployment evidence: no metric definition, no window, no baseline period. The audit fix costs one evening, not one experiment: - Promote the production measurement to its own section with a table: metric definition, measurement window, traffic share, before/after or A/B values. - Demote two of the four offline benchmarks to the appendix; ADS reviewers weight the online table far above the third and fourth offline dataset. - Add one paragraph on what the offline metrics failed to predict about online behavior — the lessons-learned register the track exists for. The general lesson: at submission time, audit *findability* of the track's gate evidence, not just its existence. ## Cross-cycle edge cases - A paper rejected (not Resubmitted) in Cycle 1 and substantially rewritten may return in Cycle 2 as a fresh submission — but if the overlap with the old forum is obvious, silence is riskier than a voluntary note; check the current CFP's wording on prior-cycle papers before deciding. - A Resubmit paper whose authors switch tracks (Research → ADS) is effectively a new submission: the Resubmit standing attaches to the reviewed paper, not to the project. Re-read the current rules before assuming the change summary carries over. - Adding authors between abstract and paper deadlines can trip the profile gate again at the worst moment: every new name needs a complete OpenReview profile too. - The abstract registered at the abstract deadline should match the final framing; bait-and-switch abstracts (registered as graph mining, submitted as LLM prompting) risk mis-bidding and hostile expert assignment. ## Output format ```text [KDD readiness] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready [Track x cycle] Research|ADS x Cycle 1|Cycle 2 (source: current CFP) [Blocking checks] [ADS deployment gate] quantified post-launch evidence: present / absent / N-A (Research) [Artifact visibility] repo cited in PDF: yes / no [Fix order] ```