← all publishers

brycewang-stanford

@brycewang-stanford source repo

Report this profile Claim this profile

• 5.3k skills
• 0 followers
• 1k repo stars
• 2 weeks ago last updated

1. ▌
   Vldb Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

   Use when deciding what lives outside a PVLDB paper's page budget, covering the rule that appendices count against the limit, the extended technical report on arXiv under single-blind review, proof and algorithm placement, artifact repositories as the extra-results home, and keeping the paper self-contained for VLDB reviewers.
   1k repo stars
2. ▌
   Vldb Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

   Use when revising a PVLDB paper's prose, covering the page-one contract for systems readers, scoping performance claims to measured regimes, stating design trade-offs instead of hiding them, terminology and notation discipline across a 12-page budget, and the tone VLDB's builder-reviewers reward.
   1k repo stars
3. ▌
   Wacv Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

   Use when organizing WACV supplementary material, covering what belongs in the anonymized supplement versus the 8-page body, packaging qualitative videos and extra results without breaking double-blind, keeping the supplement consistent with the paper across the two-round revision, and honoring WACV's no-author-identifying-links rule.
   1k repo stars
4. ▌
   Wacv Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

   Use when revising a WACV paper's prose and first page, covering how to write for the chosen Applications or Algorithms track, leading with the real-world constraint or the method, self-contained figure captions inside the 8-page-including-figures budget, scoped claims, and a first page that pre-empts the Revise-and-Resubmit question.
   1k repo stars
5. ▌
   Wsdm Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

   Use when deciding what goes where in a WSDM submission whose appendices count inside the page cap - triage between the 9-page body, the uncounted references and ethics section, and the cited external repository; compression tactics for proofs, prompts, and hyperparameter tables under WSDM's historically tight budget.
   1k repo stars
6. ▌
   Wsdm Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

   Use when drafting or revising prose for a WSDM paper - the practical-yet-principled register, user-and-platform-grounded framing, self-containment writing for a no-rebuttal review, ethical-considerations craft, limitation sentences that protect borderline papers, and compression into the appendix-inclusive page cap.
   1k repo stars
7. ▌
   Aaai Review Process · brycewang-stanford

   Use when explaining or planning around AAAI's two-phase review process, Phase 1 rejection risk, Phase 2 additional reviews, AI-assisted review pilot, author feedback, SPC/AC discussion, and final decisions.
   1k repo stars
8. ▌
   Aamas Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

   Use when preparing an accepted AAMAS paper for the IFAAMAS open-access camera-ready, covering author de-anonymization, proceedings metadata, two-column reflow of game figures and learning curves, resolving rebuttal-stage promises, registration, in-person presentation, and the public code and environment release for a multiagent paper.
   1k repo stars
9. ▌
   Aamas Related Work · brycewang-stanford

   Use when positioning an AAMAS submission against multiagent, game-theory, and reinforcement-learning literature spread across AAMAS, AAAI, IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, EC, and JAAMAS, including arXiv and workshop versions, concurrent submissions, prior conference versions, and the cross-community citation coverage AAMAS reviewers expect.
   1k repo stars
10. ▌
    Ccs Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted ACM CCS paper for the ACM Digital Library proceedings, covering de-anonymization, the ACM sigconf final format, ACM rights and eRights forms, badge placement from artifact evaluation, incorporation of shepherd and minor-revision requirements, disclosure-timing coordination, registration, and in-person presentation.
    1k repo stars
11. ▌
    Ccs Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an ACM CCS submission against the security big-four and specialist literature, including arXiv preprints, prior CCS/S&P/USENIX/NDSS papers, concurrent disclosures, CVE and advisory records, and the attack-and-defense lineage that a SIGSAC program committee expects to see credited.
    1k repo stars
12. ▌
    Acmmm Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the experiments of an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper — matched baselines per modality, ablations that isolate the cross-modal fusion, user studies or QoE measurement where the claim is subjective, dataset and media licensing, and honest compute reporting, so evidence supports a multimedia claim.
    1k repo stars
13. ▌
    Aistats Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when planning an AISTATS project timeline from venue fit through abstract submission, full-paper upload, supplementary material, review release, author-reviewer discussion, decision, camera-ready, PMLR publication, registration, presentation, and artifact release, with backward-planning offsets for theory-plus-experiments papers.
    1k repo stars
14. ▌
    Asplos Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when running the final pre-upload audit of an ASPLOS submission — the 11-page limit covering figures/tables/footnotes with references excluded, the mandatory template, the no-"et al." full-name citation rule, hyperlinked DOIs, double-blind hygiene, GenAI disclosure, appendix self-containment, and HotCRP completion before the AoE deadline.
    1k repo stars
15. ▌
    Cc Scope Fit · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a molecular / translational oncology study belongs in Cancer Cell (Cell Press) before investing in full submission. Diagnoses mechanism + translational-relevance fit; it does not design experiments or edit prose.
    1k repo stars
16. ▌
    Cikm Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about CIKM peer review — the EasyChair double-blind pipeline, the mixed IR/data-mining/knowledge-management reviewer pool, per-track evaluation criteria, the ACM Peer Review Policy including the no-AI-written-reviews rule, notification timing, and what actually moves borderline decisions.
    1k repo stars
17. ▌
    Colm Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how COLM reviews a paper — the OpenReview pipeline from late-March submission through the May review release, the May-June rebuttal window, July decisions, reciprocal-reviewing obligations, the LLM-use rules for reviewers, and how a three-edition-old venue's norms differ from mature conferences.
    1k repo stars
18. ▌
    Colt Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about COLT (Conference on Learning Theory) peer review — the double-anonymous-with-informed-area-chair model, correctness-first evaluation by expert theorists, the rebuttal stage before decisions, single-track acceptance stakes, and how PMLR publication and the community's proof culture shape outcomes.
    1k repo stars
19. ▌
    Conext Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when auditing an ACM CoNEXT submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the choice between the December and June cycles, the mandatory paper-registration step, the ACM acmart page budget (long ≤16 + ≤4 appendix; short ≤10 + ≤2 appendix), double-anonymous review, the reproducibility badge opt-in due at submission, PACMNET publication, and desk-reject triage before the cutoff.
    1k repo stars
20. ▌
    Corl Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how CoRL reviews a paper — the OpenReview double-anonymous pipeline, reviewer/AC/SAC hierarchy, rubric scoring with weak accept as the acceptance threshold, the first-round rejection gate before rebuttal, the reviewer-AC discussion window, decision meetings, and public reviews for accepted papers.
    1k repo stars
21. ▌
    Cscw Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when interpreting where a CSCW paper stands in review — the PACMHCI journal model's decision vocabulary (Revise for External Review, Revise and Resubmit, Conditional Accept), same-reviewer re-review, the rolling editorial board, and what each outcome statistically implied in the last cycle.
    1k repo stars
22. ▌
    Cvpr Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how CVPR review actually works at 16,000-submission scale, covering the OpenReview pipeline and timeline, reviewer-duty enforcement and desk rejects, the reviewer LLM ban, AC and discussion dynamics, oral/highlight/poster decision tiers, and calibrating expectations to a ~25% acceptance rate.
    1k repo stars
23. ▌
    Eacl Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about the EACL review pipeline through ACL Rolling Review, covering reviewers and the action editor's meta-review, the commitment step where EACL decides main versus Findings versus reject, ethics escalation, confidentiality, and when to route a reviewed package to a sibling *ACL venue.
    1k repo stars
24. ▌
    Ecai Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an ECAI submission is evaluated — double-blind review, the summary-reject first phase, area chairs / senior PC, the single author-response (rebuttal) window, an accept/reject decision (no journal-style major-revision round), and how ECAI's process and its joint IJCAI-ECAI 2026 form differ from AAAI, IJCAI standalone, and AAMAS.
    1k repo stars
25. ▌
    Eccv Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when modeling how ECCV review actually works — the OpenReview pipeline from March registration to June decisions, the 2026 reviewer-duty enforcement that desk-rejects authors of late or LLM-written reviews, rebuttal-to-AC-discussion dynamics, and what the ECVA-run, Springer-published structure means for outcomes.
    1k repo stars
26. ▌
    Edbt Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an EDBT research submission is evaluated, covering Microsoft CMT reviewing, the author-feedback phase, the accept / revise / reject decision, the in-cycle revise-and-resubmit second read by the original reviewers, the cycle-to-conference roll, and how EDBT's rolling model differs from SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE and the co-located ICDT.
    1k repo stars
27. ▌
    Emnlp Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an EMNLP submission inside NLP's fast-moving literature — covering ACL Anthology lineages and arXiv concurrency, citing Findings and workshop papers correctly, tracing dataset and benchmark ancestry, verifying every reference resolves under the hallucinated-citation policy, and keeping self-citation double-blind.
    1k repo stars
28. ▌
    Eurosys Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when planning a EuroSys campaign end to end — choosing between the spring and fall gates of an edition, backward-scheduling system building and evaluation from the abstract deadline, handling the notification-to-revision-to-resubmission pipeline, and landing camera-ready, artifacts, and April travel for the conference.
    1k repo stars
29. ▌
    Facct Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted ACM FAccT paper for camera-ready — de-anonymizing and adding the withheld Positionality/Acknowledgements statements, switching to the acmart sigconf proceedings format, ACM metadata (DOI, ORCID, CCS concepts, rights), the two-round camera-ready calendar for Accept vs Revise papers, ACM Open Access, finalizing datasheets/model cards, and integrating required changes without scope creep.
    1k repo stars
30. ▌
    Facct Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an ACM FAccT submission across its many disciplinary lanes — algorithmic fairness/ML, HCI, law and policy, STS and critical theory, and prior FAccT/FAT* proceedings — writing delta-first contrast that a mixed reviewer pool will accept, citing borrowed constructs to their real origin, keeping self-citations mutually anonymous, and declaring overlap with workshops, preprints, and prior versions.
    1k repo stars
31. ▌
    Fast Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how a USENIX FAST submission is evaluated, covering double-blind program-committee review with outside referees, the author-response (rebuttal) period, the Accept / Accept-with-shepherding / One-shot-Revision / Reject decision set, how a one-shot revision differs from a journal R&R and from OSDI/ATC handling, and where author leverage exists.
    1k repo stars
32. ▌
    Focs Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how a FOCS (IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science) submission is evaluated — the TCMF-sponsored program committee, subreferee delegation, double-blind norms the venue adopted years before STOC, the summer decision arc, and what each outcome means for a theory paper.
    1k repo stars
33. ▌
    Icalp Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted ICALP (EATCS) paper for the LIPIcs open-access camera-ready — converting to the lipics-v2021 document class, de-anonymizing (restoring authors, affiliations, ORCIDs, acknowledgements, and funding), completing LIPIcs metadata (ACM CCS, keywords, DOI cross-references), reconciling the body with the public full version, and passing Dagstuhl production checks.
    1k repo stars
34. ▌
    Icalp Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing the related-work and positioning of an ICALP (EATCS) theory paper — comparing against the best known bounds in the TCS literature, crediting the right prior venues (STOC/FOCS/SODA/LICS/CCC and TCS journals), stating the delta precisely, and keeping self-citations third-person under lightweight double-blind.
    1k repo stars
35. ▌
    Icassp Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when auditing an ICASSP submission before the CMS portal deadline — the IEEE 4+1 page format, the single-blind rule that the author list must appear, EDICS subject selection, the Compliance-with-Ethical-Standards statement, PDF eXpress validation, the 9-papers-per-author cap, dual-submission policy, and desk-reject triggers.
    1k repo stars
36. ▌
    Iccv Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about ICCV's review pipeline and where authors have leverage, covering the March-to-June OpenReview timeline, the every-author-reviews contract and its 2025 desk-reject enforcement, the reviewer LLM prohibition, decision statistics at 24% acceptance, oral and Highlight tiers, and the post-decision Findings outlet.
    1k repo stars
37. ▌
    Icdm Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about the ICDM (IEEE International Conference on Data Mining) review machinery - the triple-blind mechanics, the Accept / Accept-as-Short / Reject outcome space, the mixed data-mining reviewer pool, PC Co-Chair decision-making, the traditional no-rebuttal posture, and how to read an ICDM decision packet.
    1k repo stars
38. ▌
    Icdt Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an ICDT (International Conference on Database Theory) submission is evaluated, covering the two-submission-cycle model, the first-cycle revision (Accept / Revise / Reject) decision, anonymous review since 2024, the cross-cycle resubmission restriction, proof-correctness scrutiny by a database-theory PC, and how ICDT's process differs from PODS and from the co-located EDBT systems track.
    1k repo stars
39. ▌
    Iclr Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when explaining or planning around the ICLR review process, including OpenReview public review, AC/SAC roles, reviewer questions, discussion, revisions, final recommendations, and ethics escalation. Use when deciding whether to reply publicly or privately, how a permanently visible review thread shapes strategy, when to upload an allowed revision, or when to escalate a defective review to the AC for the current cycle.
    1k repo stars
40. ▌
    Icml Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when explaining or diagnosing the ICML review process, including OpenReview, reciprocal reviewing, reviewer/AC behavior, review dimensions, author response, one-round discussion, LLM-review policy, ethics flags, and public review records.
    1k repo stars
41. ▌
    Icra Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when explaining or strategizing around ICRA's review pipeline — the RAS Conference Editorial Board of Editors and Associate Editors, reviewer recruitment through PaperPlaza, the absence of an author rebuttal in the classic ICRA flow, the January accept/reject decision, and how this differs from RA-L's revise-capable journal review.
    1k repo stars
42. ▌
    Icse Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an ICSE research-track submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous PC review, the four posted criteria, the Accept / Major Revision / Reject decision model, the revision-and-final-decision timeline, and what recent ICSE acceptance statistics imply for strategy.
    1k repo stars
43. ▌
    Icsme Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted IEEE ICSME paper for its IEEE Xplore camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the IEEEtran two-column format and page budget, the IEEE eCopyright form, integrating the reviewer-required and author-response changes without scope creep, permanentizing data-availability links, and the ROSE-Festival artifact handoff.
    1k repo stars
44. ▌
    Icsme Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an IEEE ICSME submission against the software-maintenance and evolution literature across ICSME, SANER, MSR, ICPC, SCAM, ICSE/FSE, and the SE journals (TSE, EMSE), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations double-anonymous, and handling replication overlap and prior-version eligibility.
    1k repo stars
45. ▌
    Ijcai Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI paper for camera-ready submission, author de-anonymization, author-order checks, copyright and proceedings metadata, final formatting, source/package readiness, in-person presentation obligations, and artifact release timing.
    1k repo stars
46. ▌
    Ijcai Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI submission against archival AI literature, arXiv preprints, workshop papers, prior rejected versions, dual-submission rules, shortened prior versions, and resubmission-information requirements.
    1k repo stars
47. ▌
    Infocom Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when planning an IEEE INFOCOM project timeline from venue fit through the two-step EDAS abstract-then-paper registration, the early-reject checkpoint, the December notification, the IEEE Xplore camera-ready with PDF eXpress and eCF, and presentation, with backward-planning offsets for a networking paper and honest handling of the single-summer deadline.
    1k repo stars
48. ▌
    Ipsn Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an IPSN-lineage submission is evaluated, covering double-blind review, the per-track (IP / SPOTS) program committees, the rebuttal, Best Paper and Best Research Artifact judging, and how IPSN's process differs from SenSys's revision model, OpenReview venues, and CPS-IoT Week neighbors.
    1k repo stars
49. ▌
    Iros Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about IROS peer review — the PaperPlaza Associate-Editor/Editor pipeline, the traditional no-rebuttal single-notification model, how the video and embodied evidence steer reviewers, the 2026 double-anonymous posture, decision criteria for systems papers, and IEEE Xplore proceedings outcomes.
    1k repo stars
50. ▌
    Isca Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an ISCA submission is evaluated — the two-round review structure with December and February reviewer waves, what the combined rebuttal-and-revision window means for decisions, PC-meeting dynamics at a flagship architecture venue, and how to read the eventual outcome.
    1k repo stars
51. ▌
    Issta Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted ISSTA paper for the ACM Digital Library camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the final ACM sigconf layout without the review/anonymous options, ACM rights forms and DOI, metadata and CCS concepts, the artifact DOI and badge display, registration, and the in-person presentation obligation.
    1k repo stars
52. ▌
    Issta Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an ISSTA submission against the testing and analysis literature, covering the sibling venues (ICSE, FSE, ASE, ICST, PLDI, CAV), delta-first framing against the nearest technique, double-anonymous self-citation, distinguishing the closest tool baseline, and avoiding the venue-confusion of citing a paper to the wrong conference.
    1k repo stars
53. ▌
    Itcs Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use to model the ITCS reviewing pipeline — a program committee plus external reviewers, conceptual-novelty weighting, lightweight double-blind, no author-response/rebuttal phase, and a single accept/reject decision — and to understand where the (limited) author leverage actually is.
    1k repo stars
54. ▌
    Jama Figures Tables · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the figures and tables of a JAMA manuscript, including the required flow diagram, baseline table, and main-result exhibits. Shapes exhibits for JAMA conventions; it does NOT run the statistics or write the abstract.
    1k repo stars
55. ▌
    Lancet Statistics · brycewang-stanford

    Use to enforce The Lancet's clinical-statistics reporting — confidence intervals over bare P values, a pre-specified primary analysis, intention-to-treat with per-protocol sensitivity, multiplicity control for secondary endpoints, cautious pre-specified subgroup analyses with interaction tests, missing-data handling, and absolute plus relative effects.
    1k repo stars
56. ▌
    Lancet Submission · brycewang-stanford bundle

    Use as the final preflight before submitting to The Lancet — a complete checklist across importance, registration, reporting guideline + flow diagram, statistics, structured abstract, the Research in context panel, ethics/declarations/data-sharing, and required files. Bundles a checklist and a cover-letter template.
    1k repo stars
57. ▌
    Micro Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when a MICRO paper is accepted and the camera-ready is due — the nine-week July-to-September window in the 2026 cycle, de-anonymization and acknowledgments restoration, keeping the all-author reference rule, integrating rebuttal promises, the optional post-AE artifact appendix, and IEEE/ACM publication logistics.
    1k repo stars
58. ▌
    Micro Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building a MICRO paper's related-work coverage and positioning — sweeping the four-venue architecture literature plus journals and industry disclosures, differentiating by mechanism structure and cost rather than by numbers, obeying MICRO's all-author citation format, and verifying venue attribution via dblp before citing.
    1k repo stars
59. ▌
    Mind Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use to understand how Mind evaluates a submission — triple-anonymous peer review, quality as the sole criterion, the role of expert referees, and what it means for a journal that receives over 800 submissions a year. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
    1k repo stars
60. ▌
    Mlsys Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted MLSys paper for publication on proceedings.mlsys.org, covering de-anonymization of the research-track PDF, restoring company and repository identity, reconciling promised rebuttal edits, the reserved-ticket registration window for authors, and sequencing camera-ready work against the artifact-evaluation deadline.
    1k repo stars
61. ▌
    Mlsys Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an MLSys submission against the fast-moving ML-systems literature scattered across OSDI, SOSP, NSDI, ASPLOS, and ML venues, handling arXiv-first and open-source-first prior work, comparing against production systems that have no paper, and writing the delta statement two reviewer cultures will both accept.
    1k repo stars
62. ▌
    Mobicom Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when planning a MobiCom campaign across the rolling two-deadlines-per-year calendar — deciding which round to target and which edition it feeds, building a backward schedule that leaves room for over-the-air experiments, and sequencing the two-round review, rebuttal, and one-shot revision so a slip does not silently cost an edition.
    1k repo stars
63. ▌
    Mobisys Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when planning a MobiSys project timeline backward from the single early-December paper deadline through registration, two-round review with an early-reject cut, the rebuttal, notification, artifact evaluation, camera-ready, and the June conference — with device-experiment lead time built in and the one-deadline-per-year risk made explicit.
    1k repo stars
64. ▌
    Naacl Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when converting a paper accepted to NAACL Main or Findings into its final ACL Anthology version — merging promised revisions, restoring identity and community acknowledgements, applying the extra-page allowance, fixing Anthology metadata, and planning presentation logistics for an Americas host city.
    1k repo stars
65. ▌
    Naacl Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building the related-work and positioning story for a NAACL submission — covering the ACL Anthology lineages reviewers expect, citing Findings, workshop, and regional venues correctly, handling resubmission histories and concurrent preprints under ARR rules, and stating the delta in one falsifiable sentence.
    1k repo stars
66. ▌
    Ndss Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when interpreting where an NDSS submission stands — the two-round pipeline inside each cycle, the early reject with Round-1 reviews, rebuttal and interactive discussion, the Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision decision set, and the Ethics Review Board's role.
    1k repo stars
67. ▌
    Nejm Figures Tables · brycewang-stanford

    Use to build NEJM clinical display items correctly — Table 1 baseline characteristics by group (with standardized differences, not P values), Kaplan-Meier curves with numbers-at-risk, forest plots for subgroups and meta-analyses, and the CONSORT participant flow diagram.
    1k repo stars
68. ▌
    Neurips Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when planning and sequencing a full NeurIPS manuscript workflow from topic and track selection through writing, the mandatory Paper Checklist, OpenReview submission, double-blind review, author response, decision, camera-ready, artifact release, and rerouting to the Datasets & Benchmarks track, a workshop, or MLRC/TMLR.
    1k repo stars
69. ▌
    Nsdi Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when interpreting where an NSDI submission stands — the per-deadline PC pipeline, the three-way outcome space of accept, one-shot revision, and reject, the cross-deadline resubmission ban, reviewer continuity across revisions, and what each decision letter actually commits the authors to.
    1k repo stars
70. ▌
    Oopsla Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing or auditing an OOPSLA submission — picking between the two yearly PACMPL rounds, meeting the 23-page acmsmall anonymous format, writing the required Data-Availability Statement, clearing double-anonymous and concurrent-submission checks, and filing correctly on HotCRP before a firm AoE deadline.
    1k repo stars
71. ▌
    Osdi Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an OSDI paper is reviewed and decided — the double-blind HotCRP PC pipeline with no author-response period, the two tracks, conditional acceptance with heavyweight shepherding, co-chair recusal, notification timing, and the Jay Lepreau Best Paper lineage.
    1k repo stars
72. ▌
    Percom Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when auditing an IEEE PerCom research-track submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the mandatory paper-registration step, the IEEEtran 9+1 two-column page budget, double-blind anonymization, the open-data / human-subjects plan, IEEE Xplore publication, and desk-reject triage before the AoE cutoff.
    1k repo stars
73. ▌
    Pldi Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when interpreting PLDI's review pipeline — double-blind HotCRP reviewing by a PL-implementor PC, the February author-response window, March notification, up-to-10% Distinguished Paper selection, and how post-acceptance artifact evaluation and PACMPL publication follow the decision.
    1k repo stars
74. ▌
    Pmla Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use to understand how PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association) evaluates an essay — anonymous (blind) review with at least two reviewers, the Editorial Board's final decision, the Advisory Committee's reports, MLA-membership eligibility, and how anonymity is maintained. Sets expectations and shapes the essay to survive review; it does not contact editors.
    1k repo stars
75. ▌
    Pnasnexus Fit · brycewang-stanford

    Use before any writing — as the first gate — to stress-test whether a result fits PNAS Nexus — high-quality, broadly significant, multidisciplinary research across biological/health/medical, physical sciences & engineering, and social & political sciences — and to make the realistic call between PNAS Nexus, flagship PNAS, and a field journal, including the PNAS-to-PNAS-Nexus transfer route.
    1k repo stars
76. ▌
    Podc Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an ACM PODC submission is evaluated — covering lightweight double-blind review, a program committee that reads proofs, the accept/reject decision with no journal-style revision round, the Brief Announcements track's lighter bar, and how PODC's process differs from DISC, SPAA, and the sequential-theory venues STOC/FOCS/SODA.
    1k repo stars
77. ▌
    Pods Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an ACM PODS submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-anonymous review, the multi-cycle-per-year calendar, the two reviewing rounds within a cycle, the 48-hour rebuttal, the accept/reject/revision decision with a shepherded revision, PACMMOD-track publication, and how PODS differs from SIGMOD's rounds and ICDT's process.
    1k repo stars
78. ▌
    Popl Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when interpreting where a POPL submission stands — the full double-blind pipeline from the July HotCRP deadline through reviews, the optional author response, October conditional-acceptance decisions, the mandatory revision gate, Distinguished Paper selection, and publication as PACMPL Issue POPL in January.
    1k repo stars
79. ▌
    Ppopp Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing a PPoPP camera-ready, covering systematic de-anonymization, ACM rights/eRights and CCS concepts metadata, restoring the named hardware and acknowledgements, permanentizing the artifact DOI and any earned badges, and passing ACM production checks for the two-column acmart sigplan proceedings.
    1k repo stars
80. ▌
    Ppopp Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing or auditing a PPoPP paper's related-work and positioning, covering the parallel-programming literature lanes (concurrent data structures, runtimes/schedulers, GPU/accelerators, memory models, parallel algorithms), delta-first comparison against the nearest competitor, double-blind self-citation, and separating PPoPP work from CGO/PLDI/POPL/SC neighbors.
    1k repo stars
81. ▌
    Recsys Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when auditing an ACM RecSys submission before the deadline — routing between the Main, Reproducibility, Industry and Resource tracks, the ACM two-column content-page budgets with appendices counted inside, double-blind anonymization for recommender papers, the anonymous-repository expectation, and desk-reject triage.
    1k repo stars
82. ▌
    Sci Cover Letter · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing the editor-facing cover letter for Science (AAAS) — a tight, significance-forward pitch, not a summary, that lets the editor decide within two minutes whether the paper clears the broad-interest bar and should go out for external review.
    1k repo stars
83. ▌
    Sensys Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when running the final pre-upload audit of a SenSys submission — confirming the right per-edition HotCRP site and which of the two deadlines is open, the AoE cutoff in local time, the 12/6-page double-column cap, the double-blind sweep including hardware and deployment leaks, and the resubmission-with-revision contract at the second deadline.
    1k repo stars
84. ▌
    Sigcomm Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when planning an ACM SIGCOMM project timeline around the single yearly deadline — venue fit, evidence lock, abstract registration and paper upload in February, the early-reject/rebuttal/one-shot-revision review pipeline, shepherd-run camera-ready, TAPS proceedings, artifact evaluation, and forward planning for the next edition.
    1k repo stars
85. ▌
    Sigir Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when an accepted SIGIR paper must become the ACM Digital Library version of record — de-anonymizing the sigconf source, CCS concepts and keywords, the e-rights form, TAPS source upload and proof checking, restoring real system and dataset names, and the April camera-ready window before the July conference.
    1k repo stars
86. ▌
    Sigir Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning a paper against the information-retrieval literature for SIGIR — tracing lineage through SIGIR/TOIS/TREC canon, contrasting mechanisms with the nearest recent SIGIR papers, avoiding venue misattribution (DPR is EMNLP, ANCE is ICLR, NCF is WWW), and handling arXiv-era concurrent work in a fast-moving field.
    1k repo stars
87. ▌
    Sigmod Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when readying a SIGMOD research-track submission for a PACMMOD round, covering the abstract-plus-COI pre-deadline, Microsoft CMT mechanics, the 12-page ACM-template limit, double-anonymous rules, the 10-paper author cap, the 12-month rejection embargo, and desk-reject hazards.
    1k repo stars
88. ▌
    Socc Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an ACM SoCC submission is evaluated, covering dual-anonymous review, the two-round-per-year model with the no-cross-round-resubmission rule, the author-response (rebuttal) period, the joint SIGMOD+SIGOPS reviewer pool that reads for both systems and data quality, and how SoCC's process differs from OSDI/NSDI/EuroSys.
    1k repo stars
89. ▌
    Soda Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how a SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms) submission is evaluated — the per-edition program committee under joint ACM-SIAM sponsorship, HotCRP triage of a record-size submission pool, lightweight double-blind refereeing of full versions, the September rebuttal, and October decisions.
    1k repo stars
90. ▌
    Sosp Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how a SOSP submission is evaluated — double-blind HotCRP reviewing, staged review rounds, PC-chair-audited conflicts, the pre-PC-meeting author response, the single-track PC meeting where every decision is argued live, notification, and shepherded acceptance outcomes.
    1k repo stars
91. ▌
    Stoc Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how a STOC (ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing) submission is evaluated — the SIGACT program-committee model with external subreviewers, HotCRP mechanics, double-blind conflicts, the November-to-February decision arc, and what best-paper designation and rejection each actually mean.
    1k repo stars
92. ▌
    Tacas Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted TACAS (ETAPS) paper for its Springer LNCS camera-ready, covering de-anonymization of a double-blind research paper, the llncs.cls format and LNCS metadata (ORCID, references, the Springer copyright/consent-to-publish form), the gold-open-access CC-BY licensing, integrating reviewer-required changes without scope creep, permanentizing artifact links, and adding earned ETAPS artifact badges to the title page.
    1k repo stars
93. ▌
    Tacas Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning a TACAS (ETAPS) submission against the verification literature across TACAS, CAV, VMCAI, FMCAD, SPIN, and journals (STTT, FMSD), writing delta-first contrast against the nearest tools and algorithms, crediting the benchmarks and solvers you build on, keeping self-citations anonymous for double-blind research papers, and handling competition-tool and prior-version overlap.
    1k repo stars
94. ▌
    Uist Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when interpreting the UIST review pipeline — anonymous PC-plus-external review of papers and videos, the rebuttal's role, PC-meeting decisions, conditional acceptance mechanics, reading systems-reviewer psychology, and choosing the demo/poster fallback or resubmission path after a rejection.
    1k repo stars
95. ▌
    Vldb Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how PVLDB reviewing actually works, covering the rolling monthly pipeline, the roughly six-week review turnaround, the accept/revise/reject outcome space, the one-shot revision's odds, single-blind dynamics, the volume review board, and how a VLDB decision differs from batch-deadline venues.
    1k repo stars
96. ▌
    Wacv Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how WACV decides a paper, covering the two-round model, the Round 1 Accept / Revise-and-Resubmit / Reject recommendations, the optional Round 1 rebuttal, the no-rebuttal Round 2, area-chair consolidation, double-blind confidentiality, and where author leverage actually exists across the two rounds.
    1k repo stars
97. ▌
    Wsdm Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how WSDM reviews and decides papers - the hybrid single/double-blind architecture with Associate-Chair metadata visibility, at-least-three PC reviews plus senior PC assessment, the absence of a rebuttal phase, the August-to-October window, and what ~17% selectivity at a single-track venue implies.
    1k repo stars
98. ▌
    Aaai Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.
    1k repo stars
99. ▌
    Aaai Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.
    1k repo stars
100. ▌
     Aaai Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

     Use when deciding whether a project is a strong AAAI submission across its broad AI scope, should be reframed or routed to a dedicated track such as AI for Social Impact or AI Alignment, or should instead go to IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, AISTATS, UAI, ACL, CVPR, KDD, CHI, ICRA, or another specialist venue.
     1k repo stars