Wsdm Camera Ready

WSDM Camera-Ready

Turn an accepted WSDM paper into its archival form in the ACM Digital Library. WSDM proceedings are ACM proceedings (WSDM '26 is DOI 10.1145/3773966; each edition gets its own volume), so the mechanics run through ACM's standard production chain. Warning up front: the pack could not verify the current edition's camera-ready deadline or final page allowance - both are 待核实 items that the acceptance email and author-kit page settle, and nothing here substitutes for them.

The order of operations that avoids rework

1. Read the acceptance email twice; extract deadline, page allowance,
   required class options, and the rights-form sender to whitelist.
2. Complete the ACM e-rights form FIRST - it generates the exact
   copyright block and \setcopyright values your LaTeX must carry.
3. De-anonymize: author block, third-person self-citations back to
   first person where natural, acknowledgements and grants restored.
4. Restore real artifact URLs (the anonymous repo becomes the public
   one) and re-run every link.
5. Add/verify CCS concepts and keywords via the ACM CCS tool.
6. Rebuild with the camera-ready class options; check the allowance.
7. Submit source (TAPS-style production expects LaTeX/Word source,
   not just a PDF); fix validation errors early - TAPS queues clog
   near deadlines.
8. Register an author and confirm who presents (talk and/or poster).

Steps 2 before 3-6 matters: the rights confirmation dictates copyright text, DOI string, and reference format, and TAPS-produced output will be rejected or regenerated if the rights block is wrong.

De-anonymization is an editing pass, not a toggle

Removing anonymous from the class options is the trivial part. The real work:

• Self-citations written as "Prior work [12] showed..." to hide identity often read strangely once names return; decide sentence by sentence whether to restore first person.
• The rounded or role-anonymized platform descriptions (see wsdm-submission) can now be made precise if your organization's disclosure review permits it. Industry authors: start internal publication approval the day of acceptance - it is the most common cause of missed camera-ready deadlines, not LaTeX.
• Acknowledge funders and colleagues; ACM's authorship policy governs who may be listed as an author, and additions after acceptance typically need chair approval - ask, never quietly add.

Reviewer-requested changes without a rebuttal record

Because WSDM historically has no rebuttal, there is no author-committed change list from a discussion phase. The reviews and the SPC meta-review are still a soft contract: implement the factual and presentational fixes they request, and keep a one-page internal log of what changed. If the meta-review conditions acceptance on specific fixes, treat those as hard requirements and make them findable (a sentence in the right section beats a silent table tweak).

Production checklist

Edge cases that eat deadlines

• Author changes. Adding, removing, or reordering authors after acceptance needs explicit chair approval under ACM authorship norms; requests sent the week of the camera-ready deadline often cannot be processed in time. Raise them the day of acceptance.
• Title or abstract changes. Meta-review-driven retitles are usually fine but must be mirrored in the production system's metadata, or the DL landing page and the PDF will disagree forever.
• Preprint posture. Posting the accepted version to arXiv is common in this community, but verify the rights form's language about accepted-version posting and embargoes before uploading; the form you signed in step 2 governs, not habit.
• Figure regressions. TAPS-style recompilation with the publisher's tool chain can shift floats and break subfigure references that looked fine locally. Recheck every \ref in the produced PDF, not your local build.
• Third-party content. A screenshot of a platform UI or a licensed dataset's example rows may require permission statements at production time; the anonymized submission hid the problem, the camera-ready surfaces it.

Money and presence

• ACM's open-access arrangements (ACM Open) determine whether your institution faces an APC-like charge for open access; WSDM-specific terms and any registration-bundled publication fee are 待核实 per edition - verify on the edition's registration page before budgeting.
• WSDM is small and traditionally single-track: an accepted long paper's talk is in front of essentially the whole community, and the poster session is a real hiring/collaboration floor. Decide the presenter early, check visa lead times for the host country (2027: Hong Kong, February 15-19), and confirm whether the edition requires in-person presentation - the pack found no verified remote-presentation policy for current editions.

Two-week runbook (adjust to the real deadline)

Day 0-1   acceptance email parsed; e-rights kicked off; disclosure
          review opened (industry authors)
Day 2-5   de-anonymization edit pass; meta-review fixes implemented
Day 6-8   artifact goes public: real repo, license, tagged release,
          archival snapshot; links restored in the source
Day 9-11  CCS concepts, ORCID sweep, metadata parity check
Day 12    production submission; validation errors fixed same day
Day 13-14 buffer for the error you did not predict

Output format

[Camera-ready status] on track / at risk (deadline: <from acceptance email>)
[Rights] e-rights done -> copyright block synced: yes / no
[De-anonymization] author block / self-citations / acks / links: done or pending
[Allowance] final page count vs verified cap: pass / over / cap unverified
[Meta-review conditions] <fix -> location implemented>
[Presence] registrant, presenter, visa lead time, disclosure approval status