CFP: OOPSLA 2024: Round 1 Call for Papers
by Umar Farooq, Sept. 12, 2023Call for Papers: OOPSLA 2024 Round 1
========================================================================
PACMPL Issue OOPSLA 2024
Call for Papers
OOPSLA 2024 will be held as part of
The ACM Conference on Systems, Programming, Languages, and Applications:
Software for Humanity (SPLASH'24)
October 20-25, 2024, Pasadena, California, United States
https://2024.splashcon.org/track/splash-2024-oopsla
========================================================================
### Important dates
#### ROUND 1:
Submission Deadline: Fri Oct 20, 2023
Author Response: Mon Dec 11 - Wed Dec 13, 2023
Author Notification: Fri Dec 22, 2023
Artifact Submission: Fri Jan 5, 2024
Artifact kick-tires: Sat Jan 6 - Fri Jan 19, 2024
Submission of Revisions: Sun Feb 11, 2024
Author Notification of Revisions: Sat Feb 24, 2024
Artifact Notification: Fri Mar 1, 2024
Camera Ready: Fri Mar 8, 2024
#### ROUND 2:
Submission Deadline: Fri Apr 5, 2024
Author Response: Mon Jun 3 - Wed Jun 5, 2024
Author Notification: Fri Jun 21, 2024
Artifact Submission: Fri Jul 5, 2024
Artifact kick-tires: Sat Jul 6 - Fri Jul 19, 2024
Submission of Revisions: Sun Aug 4, 2024
Author Notification of Revisions: Sun Aug 18, 2024
Artifact Notification: Fri Aug 23, 2024
Camera Ready: Sun Sep 1, 2024
Papers accepted at either of the rounds will be published in the 2024
volume of PACMPL(OOPSLA) and invited to be presented at the SPLASH
conference in October 2024.
### Scope
The OOPSLA issue of the Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
(PACMPL) welcomes papers focusing on all practical and theoretical
investigations of programming languages, systems and environments.
Papers may target any stage of software development, including
requirements, modelling, prototyping, design, implementation,
generation, analysis, verification, testing, evaluation, maintenance,
and reuse of software systems. Contributions may include the
development of new tools, techniques, principles, and evaluations.
#### Review Process
PACMPL(OOPSLA) has two rounds of reviewing with submission deadlines
around October and April each year. As you submit your paper you will
receive around three reviews and an opportunity to provide an author
response that will be read and addressed by the reviewers in the final
decision outcome summary. There are 5 possible outcomes at the end of
the round:
*Accept*: Your paper will appear in the upcoming volume of PACMPL
(OOPSLA).
*Conditional Accept*: You will receive a list of required revisions
that you will need to address. You must submit a revised paper, a clear
explanation of how your revision addresses these comments, and
"if possible" a diff of the PDF as supplementary material. Assuming
you meet the listed requirements, after further review by the same
reviewers, your paper will very likely be accepted. This process
*has to be completed within two months of the initial decision* for the
paper to be accepted, so we encourage timely turnaround in case
revisions take more than one cycle to be accepted.
*Minor Revision*: The reviewers have concerns that go beyond what can
be enumerated in a list. Therefore, while you may receive a list of
revisions suggested by the reviewers, this will not necessarily be
comprehensive. You will have the opportunity to resubmit your revised
paper and have it re-reviewed by the same reviewers, which may or may
not result in your paper's acceptance. When you resubmit, you should
clearly explain how the revisions address the comments of the
reviewers, by including a document describing the changes and "if
possible" a diff of the PDF as supplementary material. This process
*has to be completed within two months of the initial decision* for the
paper to be accepted in the current round, so we encourage timely
turnaround in case revisions take more than one cycle to be accepted.
*Major Revision*: You will receive a list of revisions suggested by the
reviewers. Papers in this category are *invited to submit a revision
to the next round of submissions* with a specific set of expectations
to be met. When you resubmit, you should clearly explain how the
revisions address the comments of the reviewers, by including a
document describing the changes and "if possible" a diff of the PDF as
supplementary material. The revised paper will be re-evaluated in the
next round. Resubmitted papers will retain the same reviewers
throughout the process to the extent possible.
*Reject*: Rejected papers will not be included in the upcoming volume
of PACMPL(OOPSLA). Papers in this category are not guaranteed a review
if resubmitted less than one year from the date of the original
submission. A paper will be judged to be a resubmission if it is
substantially similar to the original submission. The Chairs will
decide whether or not a paper is a resubmission of the same work.
### Submissions
Submitted papers must be at most **23 pages** in 10 point font. There
is no page limit on references. No appendices are allowed on the main
paper, instead authors can upload supplementary material with no page
or content restrictions, but reviewers may choose to ignore it.
Submissions must adhere to the "ACM Small" template available from
[the ACM](http://www.acm.org/publications/authors/submissions). Papers
are expected to use author-year citations. Author-year citations may be
used as either a noun phrase, such as "The lambda calculus was
originally conceived by Church (1932)", or a parenthetic phase, such
as "The lambda calculus (Church 1932) was intended as a foundation for
mathematics".
PACMPL uses double-blind reviewing. Authors' identities are only
revealed if a paper is accepted. Papers must
1. omit author names and institutions,
2. use the third person when referencing your work,
3. anonymise supplementary material.
Nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens the
submission; see the DBR FAQ. When in doubt, contact the Review
Committee Chairs.
Papers must describe unpublished work that is not currently submitted
for publication elsewhere as described by [SIGPLAN's Republication
Policy](http://www.sigplan.org/Resources/Policies/Republication).
Submitters should also be aware of [ACM's Policy and Procedures on
Plagiarism](http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/plagiarism_policy).
Submissions are expected to comply with the [ACM Policies for
Authorship](https://www.acm.org/publications/authors/information-for-authors).
#### Artifacts
Authors should indicate with their initial submission if an artifact
exists, describe its nature and limitations, and indicate if it will
be submitted for evaluation. Accepted papers that fail to provide an
artifact will be requested to explain the reason they cannot support
replication. It is understood that some papers have no artifacts.
Please note that the artifact submission deadline will be following
closely the paper submission deadline so make sure you check the
Artifact Call as soon as you submit your paper to PACMPL(OOPSLA).
##### Data-Availability Statement
To help readers find data and software, OOPSLA recommends adding a
section just before the references titled Data-Availability Statement.
If the paper has an artifact, cite it here. If there is no artifact,
this section can explain how to obtain relevant code. The statement
does not count toward the OOPSLA 2024 page limit. It may be included
in the submitted paper; in fact we encourage this, even if the DOI is
not ready yet.
Example:
\section{Conclusion}
....
\section*{Data-Availability Statement}
The software that supports~\cref{s:design,s:evaluation}
is available on Software Heritage~\cite{artifact-swh}
and Zenodo~\cite{artifact-doi}.
\begin{acks}
....
#### Expert PC Members
During the submission, we will ask you to list up to 3 non-conflicted
PC members who you think are experts on the topic of this submission,
starting with the most expert. This list will not be used as an input
during the paper assignment and it will not be visible to the PC. It
may be used by the PC Chair and Associate Chairs for advice on
external experts if the paper lacks expert reviews.
### Publication
PACMPL is a Gold Open Access journal, all papers will be freely
available to the public. Authors can voluntarily cover the article
processing charge ($400 USD), but payment is not required. The
official publication date is the date the journal is made available in
the ACM Digital Library. The journal issue and associated papers may
be published up to two weeks prior to the first day of the conference.
The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent
filings related to published work.
By submitting your article to an ACM Publication, you are
acknowledging that you and your co-authors are subject to all [ACM
Publications Policies](https://www.acm.org/publications/policies),
including ACM’s [new Publications Policy on Research Involving Human
Participants and Subjects](https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/research-involving-human-participants-and-subjects).
Alleged violations of this policy or an ACM Publications Policy will
be investigated by ACM and may result in a full retraction of your
paper, in addition to other potential penalties, as per ACM
Publications Policy.
Please ensure that you and your co-authors obtain [an ORCID ID](https://orcid.org/register),
so you can complete the publishing process for your accepted paper.
ACM has been involved in ORCID from the start and we have recently
made a [commitment to collect ORCID IDs from all of our published
authors](https://authors.acm.org/author-resources/orcid-faqs).
We are committed to improving author discoverability, ensuring proper
attribution and contributing to ongoing community efforts around name
normalization; your ORCID ID will help in these efforts.
The ACM Publications Board has recently updated the ACM Authorship
Policy in several ways:
- Addressing the use of generative AI systems in the publications
process
- Clarifying criteria for authorship and the responsibilities of
authors
- Defining prohibited behaviour, such as gift, ghost, or purchased
authorship
- Providing a linked FAQ explaining the rationale for the policy and
providing additional details
You can find the updated policy here:
##### Review Committee
Review Committee Chairs:
Alex Potanin, Australian National University, Australia
Bor-Yuh Evan Chang, University of Colorado Boulder, USA
Review Committee Associate Chairs:
Anders Møller, Aahrus University, Denmark
Lingming Zhang, UIUC, USA
Review Committee:
Aleksandar Nanevski, IMDEA Software Institute, Spain
Alex Summers, University of British Columbia, Canada
Alexandra Bugariu, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Ana Milanova, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
Andreas Zeller, CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security, Germany
Anitha Gollamudi, UMass, USA
Ankush Desai, AWS, USA
Ashish Tiwari, Microsoft Research, USA
Ben Hermann, TU Dortmund, Germany
Ben Titzer, CMU, USA
Benjamin Delaware, Purdue University, USA
Bernardo Toninho, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
Bruno C. d. S. Oliveira, U. Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Burcu Kulahcioglu Ozkan, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Casper Bach Poulsen, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
Colin Gordon, Drexel University, USA
Corina Pasarenau, NASA, USA
Cyrus Omar, University of Michigan, USA
Damien Zufferey, Sonar Source, Switzerland
Dana Drachsler Cohen, Technion, Israel
David Darais, Galois, USA
David Pearce, ConsenSys, New Zealand
Di Wang, Peking University, China
Emma Söderberg, Lund University, Sweden
Emma Tosch, Northeastern University, USA
Fabian Muehlboeck, Australian National University, Australia
Fei He, Tsinghua University, China
Filip Niksic, Google, USA
Fredrik Kjolstad, Stanford University, USA
Guido Salvaneschi, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Hila Peleg, Technion, Israel
Jiasi Shen, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China (Hong Kong)
Jonathan Bell, Northeastern University, USA
Jonathan Brachthäuser, University of Tübingen, Germany
Joseph Tassarotti, New York University, USA
Justin Hsu, Cornell University, USA
Karine Even-Mendoza, King's College London, UK
Kenji Maillard, Inria Rennes, France
Matthew Flatt, U. Utah, USA
Matthew Parkinson, Microsoft, UK
Max Schaefer, GitHub, UK
Michael Coblenz, UCSD, USA
Milos Gligoric, UT Austin, USA
Minseok Jeon, Korea University, Korea
Mohamed Faouzi Atig, Uppsala University, Sweden
Owolabi Legunsen, Cornell University, USA
Pamela Zave, AT&T Laboratories, USA
Pavel Panchekha, University of Utah, USA
Rahul Gopinath, University of Sydney, Australia
Rajiv Gupta, UC Riverside, USA
Saman Amarasinghe, MIT, USA
Santosh Pande, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Sean Treichler, NVIDIA, USA
Shachar Itzhaky, Technion, Israel
Shaz Qadeer, Facebook, USA
Sheng Chen, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA
Shigeru Chiba, University of Tokyo, Japan
Shriram Krishnamurthi, Brown University, USA
Sreepathi Pai, University of Rochester, USA
Stefan Brunthaler, University of the Federal Armed Forces in Munchen, Germany
Steve Blackburn, Google, Australia
Subhajit Roy, IIT Kanpur, India
Sukyoung Ryu, KAIST, Korea
Swarnendu Biswas, IIT Kanpur, India
Thanh Vu Nguyen, George Mason University, USA
Tiark Rompf, Purdue, USA
Tien Nguyen, University of Texas at Dallas, USA
Tomas Petricek, Charles University, Czech Republic
Umut Acar, CMU, USA
Wei Le, Iowa State, USA
Wei Zhang , Meta, USA
Xiaokang Qiu, Purdue University, USA
Yingfei Xiong, Peking University, China
Yizhou Zhang, University of Waterloo, Canada
Youyou Cong, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
Yu David Liu, Binghamton, USA
Yu Feng, UCSB, USA
Yuepeng Wang, Simon Fraser University, Canada
##### Artifact Evaluation Committee
Artifact Evaluation Committee Chairs:
Guillaume Baudart, Inria - École normale supérieure, France
Sankha Narayan Guria, University of Kansas, USA
