OOPSLA Review Process
OOPSLA reviews like a journal wearing a conference's clock. Two submission
rounds per volume (2026: October 10, 2025 and March 17, 2026), a Review
Committee whose chairs act as PACMPL Associate Editors (2026: Anders Møller
and Işıl Dillig), multi-stage double-anonymous reviewing, an author-response
window per round, and a four-way decision instead of a binary one. Round 1 of
2026 accepted 75 of 227 submissions into PACMPL Vol. 10, Issue OOPSLA1 —
roughly a third, but treat any single round's rate as one data point, not a
planning constant.
The four outcomes and what each really means
| Outcome |
Mechanics |
Author's correct read |
| Accept |
Into the round's PACMPL issue after camera-ready |
Deliver commitments; start the artifact |
| Minor Revision |
Fixable concerns resolved within the same round's process (2026 folded the old Conditional Accept in here) |
A near-accept with homework and a checker |
| Major Revision |
Invitation to resubmit to the next round against an explicit expectations list, with reviewer continuity to the extent possible |
The venue wants the paper — at its price |
| Reject |
Out of this volume's pipeline |
Diagnose before re-entering the SIGPLAN family |
The revision categories change meaningfully between volumes (the 2025→2026
merge is the proof), so restate the current definitions from the live track
page before advising anyone.
Round-hopping: the mechanic to teach explicitly
A Major Revision is not a rejection with kind words — it is a reserved slot
with named examiners. The hop works like this:
R1 submission (Oct) --Major Revision--> resubmit in R2 (Mar), same volume
R2 submission (Mar) --Major Revision--> resubmit in next volume's R1 (~Oct)
Either round --Accept/Minor Revision--> that round's issue (OOPSLA1 / OOPSLA2)
Consequences worth spelling out:
- An R1 Major Revision handled well still publishes in the same year's
volume (OOPSLA2) — often faster than a fresh submission elsewhere.
- An R2 Major Revision crosses volumes, so the calendar cost is ~7 months;
factor that into round choice at submission time (
oopsla-workflow).
- Reviewer continuity cuts both ways: unresolved expectations are checked by
the people who wrote them. Answer the list item by item in a change log;
do not silently re-litigate demands you dislike — argue them explicitly or
satisfy them.
Inside a round
- Triage — format, anonymity, scope; the firm-deadline and 23-page rules
bite here (
oopsla-submission).
- Multi-stage reviewing — the OOPSLA1 2026 front matter describes
multiple stages of double-anonymous review; expect additional reviews or
expert consultations on borderline papers between stages.
- Author response — the four-day window where bucket arguments happen
(
oopsla-author-response).
- Committee resolution — outcomes assigned; expectation lists drafted
for revision buckets.
- After acceptance — camera-ready into the PACMPL issue
(
oopsla-camera-ready), artifact evaluation with badges
(oopsla-artifact-evaluation), talk at SPLASH.
Reading a review packet like a strategist
- Count, per review, the demands that are bounded (rerun, clarify, add
baseline) versus unbounded (rethink the design, new study population).
Mostly-bounded packets are Minor-Revision-shaped; argue accordingly.
- A single devastated reviewer among positive ones is a discussion problem,
not a paper problem — your response should arm the positive reviewers with
the citations and pointers they need to carry the argument.
- Fit complaints at OOPSLA are weaker than at narrower venues (the published
scope spans formalisms to empirical studies); rebut them with precedent
shapes, not indignation.
Output format
[Stage] triage / in review / response window / decision / revision pending
[Packet read] bounded vs unbounded demands per review
[Likely outcome] one of four + confidence
[Round plan] same-round path or hop target with dates from live pages
[Action] the single highest-leverage next move
1---2name: oopsla-review-process3description: Use when explaining or strategizing around OOPSLA's two-round review machinery — double-anonymous multi-stage reviewing, the four outcomes (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject), reviewer continuity across rounds, round-hopping a Major Revision, and how acceptance flows into a PACMPL issue and the SPLASH talk.4---56# OOPSLA Review Process78OOPSLA reviews like a journal wearing a conference's clock. Two submission9rounds per volume (2026: October 10, 2025 and March 17, 2026), a Review10Committee whose chairs act as PACMPL Associate Editors (2026: Anders Møller11and Işıl Dillig), multi-stage double-anonymous reviewing, an author-response12window per round, and a four-way decision instead of a binary one. Round 1 of132026 accepted 75 of 227 submissions into PACMPL Vol. 10, Issue OOPSLA1 —14roughly a third, but treat any single round's rate as one data point, not a15planning constant.1617## The four outcomes and what each really means1819| Outcome | Mechanics | Author's correct read |20| --- | --- | --- |21| Accept | Into the round's PACMPL issue after camera-ready | Deliver commitments; start the artifact |22| Minor Revision | Fixable concerns resolved **within the same round's** process (2026 folded the old Conditional Accept in here) | A near-accept with homework and a checker |23| Major Revision | Invitation to resubmit to the **next round** against an explicit expectations list, with reviewer continuity to the extent possible | The venue wants the paper — at its price |24| Reject | Out of this volume's pipeline | Diagnose before re-entering the SIGPLAN family |2526The revision categories change meaningfully between volumes (the 2025→202627merge is the proof), so restate the current definitions from the live track28page before advising anyone.2930## Round-hopping: the mechanic to teach explicitly3132A Major Revision is not a rejection with kind words — it is a reserved slot33with named examiners. The hop works like this:3435```text36R1 submission (Oct) --Major Revision--> resubmit in R2 (Mar), same volume37R2 submission (Mar) --Major Revision--> resubmit in next volume's R1 (~Oct)38Either round --Accept/Minor Revision--> that round's issue (OOPSLA1 / OOPSLA2)39```4041Consequences worth spelling out:4243- An R1 Major Revision handled well still publishes *in the same year's44 volume* (OOPSLA2) — often faster than a fresh submission elsewhere.45- An R2 Major Revision crosses volumes, so the calendar cost is ~7 months;46 factor that into round choice at submission time (`oopsla-workflow`).47- Reviewer continuity cuts both ways: unresolved expectations are checked by48 the people who wrote them. Answer the list item by item in a change log;49 do not silently re-litigate demands you dislike — argue them explicitly or50 satisfy them.5152## Inside a round53541. **Triage** — format, anonymity, scope; the firm-deadline and 23-page rules55 bite here (`oopsla-submission`).562. **Multi-stage reviewing** — the OOPSLA1 2026 front matter describes57 multiple stages of double-anonymous review; expect additional reviews or58 expert consultations on borderline papers between stages.593. **Author response** — the four-day window where bucket arguments happen60 (`oopsla-author-response`).614. **Committee resolution** — outcomes assigned; expectation lists drafted62 for revision buckets.635. **After acceptance** — camera-ready into the PACMPL issue64 (`oopsla-camera-ready`), artifact evaluation with badges65 (`oopsla-artifact-evaluation`), talk at SPLASH.6667## Reading a review packet like a strategist6869- Count, per review, the demands that are *bounded* (rerun, clarify, add70 baseline) versus *unbounded* (rethink the design, new study population).71 Mostly-bounded packets are Minor-Revision-shaped; argue accordingly.72- A single devastated reviewer among positive ones is a discussion problem,73 not a paper problem — your response should arm the positive reviewers with74 the citations and pointers they need to carry the argument.75- Fit complaints at OOPSLA are weaker than at narrower venues (the published76 scope spans formalisms to empirical studies); rebut them with precedent77 shapes, not indignation.7879## Output format8081```text82[Stage] triage / in review / response window / decision / revision pending83[Packet read] bounded vs unbounded demands per review84[Likely outcome] one of four + confidence85[Round plan] same-round path or hop target with dates from live pages86[Action] the single highest-leverage next move87```
brycewang-stanford