# Kdd Camera Ready > Use when preparing an accepted KDD paper for ACM proceedings, covering the 12-page proceedings budget with 9 content pages, the extra content page over the submission, the 3-page cap on references plus appendix, ACM e-rights and TAPS source processing, ACM Open APC status, de-anonymization, and Digital Library metadata for SIGKDD. - Skill: `thedixitjain/kdd-camera-ready` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/kdd-camera-ready` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/kdd-camera-ready/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Finance & Business - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/kdd-camera-ready --- # KDD Camera Ready Use this after acceptance. KDD publishes through ACM, which means the final version is not "the PDF you upload" — it is the output of ACM's production pipeline (e-rights, then TAPS) applied to your **source files**. Papers that compile locally but violate acmart conventions stall in TAPS, so start this process the week the decision arrives, not the week the proceedings deadline arrives. ## The page arithmetic (2026 anchor — reverify per cycle) Accepted KDD 2026 papers all received the same proceedings budget: **12 pages total, of which 9 are content pages**. Since submissions were 8 content pages, acceptance buys exactly **one extra content page**, while references and appendix together must fit in the remaining **3 pages**. - Spend the ninth page deliberately: reviewer-requested ablations, the scoping sentences promised in rebuttal, and de-anonymized acknowledgements all compete for it. - The 3-page references+appendix cap is the trap: submissions with long optional appendices must **cut appendix material**, not just add a page. Decide early what migrates into the body, what moves to the public repository, and what dies. - Keep section, table, and algorithm numbering aligned with the reviewed version where possible, so the AC's conditional-acceptance notes remain checkable. ## ACM production pipeline The standard ACM sequence KDD rides on: 1. **e-rights form** — the contact author receives the rights email; the paper's final title/author list must be frozen before completing it, because the form stamps the copyright block and DOI metadata. 2. **TAPS upload** — a zip of LaTeX source (or Word), named per instruction, which TAPS compiles into both the PDF and the HTML5 Digital Library version. 3. **Proof review** — check the generated proofs; HTML rendering surfaces errors the PDF hides. ```bash # Typical TAPS package hygiene before zipping (KDD-specific naming: see the # acceptance email; the zip name encodes proceedings acronym + paper id) grep -rn "anonymous" main.tex sections/*.tex # leftover anonymity flags grep -rn "\\\\vspace\|\\\\baselineskip" *.tex # spacing hacks TAPS rejects grep -rn "includegraphics" *.tex | wc -l # every figure file must ship in the zip biber --tool --validate-datamodel refs.bib # broken .bib entries stall TAPS builds ``` Switch the document class options from `[sigconf,anonymous,review]` to `[sigconf]`, add the rights commands TAPS emails you (`\setcopyright`, conference metadata), and never hand-edit the copyright block. ## De-anonymization sweep | Item | Submission state | Camera-ready state | |---|---|---| | Author block + affiliations | Stripped by `anonymous` | Restored, order frozen pre-e-rights | | Acknowledgements, grants | Absent | Restored (costs body space) | | Repository reference | Anonymized mirror | Public, licensed, DOI/URL stable | | Self-citations | Third person | Natural first person where clearer | | ADS deployment context | Possibly genericized | Name the system/org to the extent employer policy allows | | CCS concepts + keywords | Often placeholder | Final — they drive DL indexing | Test the public repository logged out; a camera-ready pointing at a still-private repo is the most common post-publication complaint at ACM venues. ## Money and access - KDD proceedings live in the ACM Digital Library under the **ACM Open** model: authors from institutions not participating in ACM Open face an article-processing charge unless they qualify for a waiver; ACM announced a temporary 65% subsidy for 2026. Check your institution's ACM Open status before budgeting — this surprises industrial and non-Western labs most. - Exact APC amounts, waiver mechanics, registration pricing, and presentation obligations were not verifiable at pack-build time (待核实): confirm all four against the acceptance email and the current conference pages. ## Worked example: spending the ninth page An accepted Research Track paper has three claims on the extra content page: the AC's conditional note asked for a scoped limitations paragraph; R3 requested the sensitivity analysis currently in Appendix C; and the authors want a new "extensions" subsection. Allocation logic: 1. The AC's conditional item is non-negotiable — it lands first (≈0.25 page). 2. The reviewer-requested sensitivity table migrates from appendix to body — this also relieves the 3-page refs+appendix cap, solving two constraints at once (≈0.5 page). 3. The new extensions subsection loses: content never reviewed should not enter the version of record beyond clarification. It belongs in the repository README or the next paper. The heuristic: the ninth page pays review debts before it buys new real estate. ## Proceedings metadata checklist - Title and abstract in TAPS metadata match the PDF exactly — the DL indexes the metadata, not the PDF. - CCS concepts and keywords chosen deliberately; they drive Digital Library search and recommendation for the paper's whole life. - Author name forms consistent with each author's prior DL records (initials vs full names split citation counts). - ORCIDs attached; funding acknowledgements in the format your grants require. - The repository/dataset DOI cited in the final text is the archival one, not a branch URL that will rot. - If the conference collects presentation or poster assets separately, that pipeline is distinct from TAPS — track both. ## Timeline discipline - Camera-ready deadlines for the current cycle were not verifiable at pack-build time (待核实) — take them from the acceptance email, and assume the window is short: dual-cycle venues compress production schedules. - Do the TAPS dry run in week one: compile the de-anonymized source with the rights commands stubbed in, and fix acmart violations before the real upload window. - Author-order changes after e-rights are painful to impossible; settle order disputes before anyone touches the form. ## Output format ```text [Camera-ready status] on-track / blocked-at-TAPS / blocked-at-rights / not started [Page budget] content: /9, refs+appendix: /3, total: /12 [Pipeline stage] e-rights / TAPS upload / proofs / done [De-anonymization] [ACM Open status] covered / APC due (amount 待核实) / waiver requested [Conditional-acceptance items] where it landed> ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `KDD-Skills/skills/kdd-camera-ready/SKILL.md`