brycewang-stanford OOPSLA Camera-Ready
An accepted OOPSLA paper does not go into "conference proceedings" — it becomes a journal article in PACMPL (Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages), Gold Open Access, in the issue matching its acceptance round: Round 1 acceptances of the 2026 volume appeared as Vol. 10, Issue OOPSLA1 (published no earlier than April 1, 2026); Round 2 acceptances form Issue OOPSLA2 (no earlier than October 1, 2026). The talk then happens at SPLASH — for 2026, Oakland, with OOPSLA sessions October 5–7. Production deadlines arrive by email from ACM/the chairs and were not publicly posted at verification time (待核实): treat the acceptance letter as the calendar.
What changes between acceptance and print
| Item | Submission state | Published-article state |
|---|---|---|
| Class options | acmsmall,screen,review,anonymous |
acmsmall,screen per production instructions |
| Authors | Hidden | Full names, affiliations, ORCIDs, CCS concepts |
| Acknowledgments | Absent | Funders, grant numbers, contributors |
| Data-Availability Statement | Anonymized archive | Real archive — ideally the DOI-stamped Zenodo deposit from artifact evaluation |
| Citations to your own PACMPL-era work | Third person | May remain third person; only add identity where required |
| Page budget | 23 pages | Up to 25 pages (revision cap), same exclusions |
Reviewer-commitment reconciliation
For papers that passed through Minor Revision, the final version is checked against the concern list, so build the reconciliation table before touching LaTeX:
| # | Reviewer requirement | Where satisfied (section/page) | Evidence |
|---|----------------------|--------------------------------|----------|
| 1 | Add baseline B to Table 3 | §5.2, p.14 | artifact run 2026-xx-xx |
| 2 | Clarify Thm 2 side condition | §3.4, p.8 | rewritten statement |
...every row filled before upload; unfillable rows escalated to the chairs.
Silently dropping a commitment is the single fastest way to sour the same committee that will see your group's next submission.
ACM production specifics to expect
- Rights and open access. PACMPL is Gold OA; the rights form determines
the CC license line printed on page one. The current APC amount and waiver
path for OOPSLA authors were not confirmed at the access date (待核实) —
check
dl.acm.org/journal/pacmpl/open-accessbefore advising anyone on cost, and route institutional questions to ACM Open. - Metadata is citation-critical. The article gets a volume, issue
(OOPSLA1/OOPSLA2), and article number — e.g. the form
PACMPL 10(OOPSLA1)— and that is how others must cite it (oopsla-related-work). Get title capitalization and author-name forms right in the ACM form, not just the PDF, because the DL record is generated from the form. - Badges print on the paper. Artifact badges awarded through the SPLASH
process appear on the published article; coordinate the artifact timeline
(
oopsla-artifact-evaluation) so the deposit DOI exists before the camera-ready statement references it.
Talk planning is part of camera-ready
Accepted papers present in person at SPLASH; for 2026 that meant registering for Oakland (October 4–9) and preparing for a PL audience that has already had access to the published April article for months in the OOPSLA1 case — the talk should assume the paper is read, and spend its minutes on the mechanism and the demo, not the related-work slide. An accepted-paper poster is additionally encouraged at SPLASH and is cheap conference-hallway leverage.
Output format
[Issue target] OOPSLA1 / OOPSLA2, volume <n>
[Reconciliation] <rows total / rows satisfied / escalations>
[De-anonymization] complete: names, ORCID, acks, statement, links
[Rights] form status + license line + APC/waiver status (待核实 items flagged)
[Talk] registration, slot, poster decision