# Webconf Camera Ready > Use when preparing a Web Conference (WWW) camera-ready after acceptance, covering the uniform 12-page/8-content proceedings budget, de-anonymization and restored acknowledgements, ACM e-rights and TAPS production, ACM Open cost exposure, author registration, and the artifact-badging submission that rides along with the final files. - Skill: `brycewang-stanford/webconf-camera-ready` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add brycewang-stanford/webconf-camera-ready` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/brycewang-stanford/webconf-camera-ready/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Finance & Business - Author: brycewang-stanford (https://skillmd.com/u/brycewang-stanford) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/brycewang-stanford/webconf-camera-ready --- # Web Conference Camera-Ready The 2026 notification-to-camera-ready gap was twelve days (January 13 to January 25, 2026) — short enough that de-anonymization, rights forms, registration, and artifact deposit must be prepared *before* the decision arrives. Everything below is anchored to the 2026 edition; the ACM pipeline steps are the publisher's standard flow and the WWW-specific instructions arrive by email after acceptance, so treat the sequence as fixed and the details as 待核实 until that email lands. ## The proceedings budget is a different shape Accepted papers all receive the same maximum length: **12 pages, of which 8 are content pages**, in the ACM Digital Library. Note what did *not* change from submission: the content allowance. Unlike venues that grant an extra page for addressing reviews, the 2026 Web Conference held content at 8 pages, so every rebuttal promise ("we will add baseline B to Table 2") must be paid for by cutting something. Budget the cuts when writing the rebuttal, not after acceptance. | Task | Depends on | Can be done before notification? | |---|---|---| | De-anonymized source with author block | acmart, no `anonymous` option | Yes — keep a parallel branch | | Acknowledgements + funding numbers restored | grant records | Yes | | Rebuttal-promised edits drafted | review packet | Yes | | ACM e-rights form | acceptance email | No — but decide licensing stance now | | TAPS source upload and HTML/PDF proof check | e-rights completion | No | | Author registration | fee schedule | Decide payer now | | Artifact deposit + badge application | camera-ready deadline | Yes — deposit early | ## De-anonymization sweep Reverse every anonymity edit deliberately; half-reversed papers are the classic failure. Check: author block and ORCIDs (ACM requires ORCIDs for the publishing workflow — have every co-author's ready), acknowledgements, grant numbers, third-person self-citations back to first person where natural, dataset names that were masked ("a large e-commerce platform" → the real name, *if* the data agreement permits naming it), and repository links now pointing at the real, non-anonymous archive. ```bash # Sanity greps on the de-anonymized LaTeX before TAPS upload grep -rn "anonymous\|Anonymized\|redacted\|our institution" *.tex # leftovers grep -rn "\\\\documentclass" main.tex # 'anonymous' and 'review' options removed? grep -c "orcid" main.tex # one per author expected in acmart pdfinfo main.pdf | grep -i "author\|title" # metadata restored, not "anonymous" ``` ## ACM production pipeline (e-rights → TAPS → DL) 1. **e-rights**: the corresponding author receives the ACM rights form. The choice set (copyright transfer, licence, or open access under ACM Open) determines what appears in the copyright block — the `\setcopyright{...}` and conference metadata commands in the final source must match the form, or TAPS bounces the paper. 2. **TAPS** (The ACM Publishing System) compiles your *source*, not your PDF, and emits both PDF and responsive HTML for the Digital Library. Non-standard packages, hand-positioned floats, and bitmap-only figures are the usual casualties; run the source through TAPS early in the window and read the HTML rendering, which is what many readers will actually see. 3. **ACM Open exposure**: whether an APC applies depends on the corresponding author's institutional agreement with ACM; amounts, waivers, and any subsidy for the 2026 volume were not verifiable when this pack was built — check the acceptance email and https://www.acm.org/publications/openaccess before assuming either "free" or a specific fee. ## Registration and presentation At least one author registering is the norm for ACM proceedings venues, and the 2026 edition's postponement announcement explicitly extended the **author registration deadline to March 30, 2026** — evidence that author registration was a tracked obligation. The postponement also promised a format decision (in-person vs. hybrid) "by May," so presentation-mode rules for 2026 were genuinely fluid; whatever edition you are in, get the current attendance rule in writing from the official site rather than from precedent. ## The artifact rider Artifact badging submissions were due **together with the camera-ready** in 2026. If the paper has a dataset, model, or code artifact, run `webconf-artifact-evaluation` in parallel with this checklist — the archival deposit (DOI-bearing repository, not a bare GitHub URL) takes longer than the badge form. The final paper should cite the deposited artifact's persistent identifier, which means the deposit must exist *before* the final PDF freezes. ## Edge cases the twelve days do not forgive - **Author corrections after the freeze.** The submission-time freeze allowed only spelling and affiliation fixes; a co-author who changed institutions between October and January updates their affiliation now, but a missing contributor cannot be added at camera-ready either — that door closed at the abstract deadline, and pleading at production time fails. - **The masked platform that must stay masked.** If the data agreement never permitted naming the platform, the camera-ready keeps the anonymized description permanently. Decide this with the data owner *before* acceptance; legal review does not fit in twelve days. - **Postponement fallout.** The 2026 edition moved its dates after camera-ready closed. Published papers were unaffected, but visa letters, talk scheduling, and registration transfers all reopened. Keep the team's travel plans decoupled from the publication pipeline — the paper is done when TAPS accepts it. - **The rebuttal promise that no longer fits.** If a promised addition cannot be honored within 8 content pages, honor its *substance* in condensed form and note the full version in the artifact. Silently dropping a commitment that reviewers conditioned acceptance on is the one camera-ready sin with reputation cost. ## Twelve-day sequence 1. Days 1-2: e-rights form; lock licensing; start registration. 2. Days 3-6: apply rebuttal-promised edits inside the 8-content-page budget; de-anonymization sweep; artifact deposit finalized, DOI cited in the paper. 3. Days 7-9: TAPS upload; fix compile and HTML-rendering issues. 4. Days 10-12: proof-read TAPS output (PDF *and* HTML), submit badge application, confirm registration receipt. ## Output format ```text [Camera-ready status] on track / blocked [Budget] content=/8, total=/12; rebuttal promises paid for: yes/no [De-anonymization] author block / acks / self-citations / data names / metadata [ACM pipeline] e-rights done? TAPS compiled? HTML proof read? [Money] registration state; ACM Open status (verified / 待核实) [Artifact rider] deposit DOI in paper: yes / no / N-A ```