SIGCOMM Topic Selection
Use this before writing, and before committing the single yearly deadline. SIGCOMM is the
broad networking flagship: it rewards a contribution to the design, measurement, or analysis
of networks and communication systems that is stated as a mechanism or architecture and
proven under realistic conditions. Reopen the current CFP's topic list before final
routing — emphasis drifts between editions.
Fit test
- Prefer SIGCOMM when the contribution is a networking-stack idea — a protocol, transport or
congestion mechanism, routing or forwarding architecture, data-center or wide-area fabric,
programmable-data-plane technique, network measurement result, or systems-for-networking
design — with evaluation on a testbed, trace, or deployment.
- The bar is a principle that travels, not a tuned deployment. A single-site tuning win
with no generalizable mechanism reads as under-contribution here even if the numbers are
good.
- Both tracks live under this bar: research wants design novelty and depth; experience
wants lessons only real operation at scale can teach.
Where else the work might belong
| Signal in the project |
Better-fit venue |
Why |
| Networked-systems build with heavy implementation, USENIX-style |
NSDI |
Design-and-implementation focus; two deadlines a year |
| Mobile, wireless, or physical-layer / RF mechanism |
MobiCom (or SIGMOBILE venues) |
Over-the-air and device evidence is that community's core |
| Solid networking result, but incremental for the flagship |
CoNEXT |
SIGCOMM's sister venue for strong but narrower contributions |
| Pure Internet/traffic measurement with no new mechanism |
IMC |
Measurement-methodology venue; SIGCOMM wants measurement to motivate a mechanism |
| Performance modeling / analysis as the contribution |
SIGMETRICS |
Analytical and evaluation-method emphasis |
| OS/storage/distributed-systems core, networking secondary |
OSDI / SOSP |
Systems-first framing |
The routing that trips people up
SIGCOMM and NSDI overlap heavily, and authors agonize over the split. A workable heuristic:
if the paper's spine is a networking abstraction, protocol, or measurement-driven design
argument, it leans SIGCOMM; if the spine is a built-and-deployed system whose value is in
the engineering and implementation, it leans NSDI. Neither is a rule — strong papers cross
the line both ways — but the single SIGCOMM deadline means a misroute costs a year, so decide
deliberately. IMC is the other frequent confusion: a measurement paper needs a mechanism or
a design implication to be SIGCOMM rather than IMC.
Vignette: where a congestion-control result goes
A project proposes a new congestion signal and shows it cuts tail flow-completion time on a
data-center testbed. SIGCOMM reading: strong fit — a transport mechanism with tail
evidence under realistic traffic is the house genre (compare DCTCP and pFabric in the
exemplars). Strip the mechanism and keep only a measurement of how badly today's schemes
behave, and it drifts toward IMC; rebuild it as a fully implemented, deployed RPC stack whose
contribution is the system, and NSDI becomes competitive. Same core, three homes.
Sharpening moves before committing
- Name the mechanism in one sentence: the protocol change, the architectural shift, or
the measured invariant. If no mechanism exists, the SIGCOMM framing does not exist either.
- Decide the track honestly and early; the experience track is a strength for real
deployments, not a demotion.
- Confirm the evaluation can reach testbed, trace, or deployment evidence, not
simulation only; simulation-only fabric claims are a quiet fit failure at this venue.
- Weigh the one-deadline cost: if the result is a year from convincing, plan the year
rather than gambling the single February slot.
Output format
[Fit] strong SIGCOMM / possible SIGCOMM / better elsewhere
[Track] research / experience / n-a
[Best venue] SIGCOMM / NSDI / MobiCom / CoNEXT / IMC / SIGMETRICS / other
[Mechanism sentence] <one sentence naming the networking contribution>
[Top rejection risk] <novelty / evidence realism / measurement-only / scope>
[Next action] <mechanism, evaluation, framing, or venue switch>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → SIGCOMM-Skills/skills/sigcomm-topic-selection/SKILL.md
1---2name: sigcomm-topic-selection3description: Use when deciding whether a project is a strong ACM SIGCOMM fit, choosing the research versus experience track, identifying the networking-stack mechanism at the core of the contribution, and routing misfits to NSDI, MobiCom, CoNEXT, IMC, SIGMETRICS, or a systems venue before writing begins.4---567# SIGCOMM Topic Selection89Use this before writing, and before committing the single yearly deadline. SIGCOMM is the10broad networking flagship: it rewards a contribution to the design, measurement, or analysis11of networks and communication systems that is stated as a **mechanism or architecture** and12proven under **realistic conditions**. Reopen the current CFP's topic list before final13routing — emphasis drifts between editions.1415## Fit test1617- Prefer SIGCOMM when the contribution is a networking-stack idea — a protocol, transport or18 congestion mechanism, routing or forwarding architecture, data-center or wide-area fabric,19 programmable-data-plane technique, network measurement result, or systems-for-networking20 design — with evaluation on a testbed, trace, or deployment.21- The bar is a **principle that travels**, not a tuned deployment. A single-site tuning win22 with no generalizable mechanism reads as under-contribution here even if the numbers are23 good.24- Both tracks live under this bar: **research** wants design novelty and depth; **experience**25 wants lessons only real operation at scale can teach.2627## Where else the work might belong2829| Signal in the project | Better-fit venue | Why |30|---|---|---|31| Networked-systems build with heavy implementation, USENIX-style | NSDI | Design-and-implementation focus; two deadlines a year |32| Mobile, wireless, or physical-layer / RF mechanism | MobiCom (or SIGMOBILE venues) | Over-the-air and device evidence is that community's core |33| Solid networking result, but incremental for the flagship | CoNEXT | SIGCOMM's sister venue for strong but narrower contributions |34| Pure Internet/traffic **measurement** with no new mechanism | IMC | Measurement-methodology venue; SIGCOMM wants measurement to motivate a mechanism |35| Performance modeling / analysis as the contribution | SIGMETRICS | Analytical and evaluation-method emphasis |36| OS/storage/distributed-systems core, networking secondary | OSDI / SOSP | Systems-first framing |3738## The routing that trips people up3940SIGCOMM and NSDI overlap heavily, and authors agonize over the split. A workable heuristic:41if the paper's spine is a **networking abstraction, protocol, or measurement-driven design42argument**, it leans SIGCOMM; if the spine is a **built-and-deployed system whose value is in43the engineering and implementation**, it leans NSDI. Neither is a rule — strong papers cross44the line both ways — but the single SIGCOMM deadline means a misroute costs a year, so decide45deliberately. IMC is the other frequent confusion: a measurement paper needs a **mechanism or46a design implication** to be SIGCOMM rather than IMC.4748## Vignette: where a congestion-control result goes4950A project proposes a new congestion signal and shows it cuts tail flow-completion time on a51data-center testbed. SIGCOMM reading: strong fit — a transport **mechanism** with tail52evidence under realistic traffic is the house genre (compare DCTCP and pFabric in the53exemplars). Strip the mechanism and keep only a measurement of how badly today's schemes54behave, and it drifts toward IMC; rebuild it as a fully implemented, deployed RPC stack whose55contribution is the system, and NSDI becomes competitive. Same core, three homes.5657## Sharpening moves before committing5859- Name the **mechanism** in one sentence: the protocol change, the architectural shift, or60 the measured invariant. If no mechanism exists, the SIGCOMM framing does not exist either.61- Decide the **track** honestly and early; the experience track is a strength for real62 deployments, not a demotion.63- Confirm the evaluation can reach **testbed, trace, or deployment** evidence, not64 simulation only; simulation-only fabric claims are a quiet fit failure at this venue.65- Weigh the **one-deadline cost**: if the result is a year from convincing, plan the year66 rather than gambling the single February slot.6768## Output format6970```text71[Fit] strong SIGCOMM / possible SIGCOMM / better elsewhere72[Track] research / experience / n-a73[Best venue] SIGCOMM / NSDI / MobiCom / CoNEXT / IMC / SIGMETRICS / other74[Mechanism sentence] <one sentence naming the networking contribution>75[Top rejection risk] <novelty / evidence realism / measurement-only / scope>76[Next action] <mechanism, evaluation, framing, or venue switch>77```7879---8081**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `SIGCOMM-Skills/skills/sigcomm-topic-selection/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain