ECOOP 2022 will happen in Berlin in June. Stay tuned for details…
ECOOP 2022: Call for PapersView track page for all details
ECOOP is a conference about programming originally focused on object-orientation, but now including all practical and theoretical investigations of programming languages, systems and environments. ECOOP solicits innovative solutions to real problems as well as evaluations of existing solutions.
Authors are asked to pick one of the following categories:
- Research. The most traditional category for papers that advance the sate of the art.
- Reproduction. An empirical evaluation that reconstructs a published experiment in a different context in order to validate the results of that earlier work.
- Experience. Applications of known PL techniques in practice as well as tools. Industry papers will be reviewed by practitioners. We welcome negative results that may provide inspiration for future research.
- Pearls/Brave New Ideas. Articles that either explain a known idea in an elegant way or unconventional papers introducing ideas that may take some time to substantiate. These papers may be short.
Submission must not have been published, or have major overlap with previous work. In case of doubt, contact the chair. Proceedings are published in open access by Dagstuhl LIPIcs in the Dagstuhl LIPIcs LaTeX-style template.
ECOOP uses double-blind reviewing. Authors’ identities are only revealed if a paper is accepted. Papers must 1. omit author names and institutions, and 2. use the third person when referencing the authors’ own work. Nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens the submission; see the DB FAQ. When in doubt, contact the chair.
There is no page limit on submissions, but authors must understand that reviewers have a fixed time budget for each paper, so the quality of the comments is likely to be inversely proportional to length. Brevity is a virtue.
Authors will be given a three-day period to read and respond to the reviews of their papers before the program committee meeting. Responses have no length limit.
To support replication of experiments, authors of research papers may submit artifacts to the Artifact Evaluation Committee. They will be asked whether they intend to submit an artifact at submission time. It is understood that some paper do not have artifacts.
ECOOP 2022 will have two deadlines for submissions, three months apart. Future years may have more deadlines. Papers submitted in each round can be (a) accepted, (b) rejected, or (c) asked for revisions. Revisions can be submitted at a later round. Papers retain their reviewers during revision.
- Submission R1: 1 December 2021
- R1 Artifacts due: 10 December 2021
- Response R1: 23 January 2022
- Notification R1: 1 February 2022
- Submission R2: 1 March 2022
- R2 Artifacts due: 10 March 2022
- Response R2: 23 April 2022
- Notification R2: 1 May 2022
We have Journal First / After arrangements with ACM’s Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), Elsevier’s Science of Computer Programming (SCP) and AITO’s Journal of Object Technology (JOT).
Only new research papers are eligible to be Journal First (JF). JF papers will have an extended abstract in the ECOOP proceedings. The deadline is that same as round 1 of submissions and the notification is aligned with round 2 notification. TOPLAS JF papers should be submitted according to this announcement. SCP JF papers should follow this call for papers. JF papers are presented at the conference and eligible for awards.
Journal After (JA) papers are papers for which the authors request to be considered for post conference journal publication. Once accepted by the ECOOP PC, these papers will be forwarded to the journal editors. Reviews and reviewers will be forwarded and used at the editor’s discretion. JA papers will have an extended abstract (up to 12 pages) in the conference proceedings.
Overall, multiple deadlines are meant to speed up the reviewing cycle and better support revisions. Our expectation is that more papers will be accepted with this new process.
A paper is submitted in R1. Reviewers find it good as is, the paper is accepted. A preprint is added to the conference website as soon as the camera ready copy is complete. The paper is presented at ECOOP’22.
A paper is submitted in R1. The reviewers requires changes. Authors have one month to revise and resubmit for R2. The same reviewers check the paper, and accept it. Authors have one more month to finalise their work. The paper is presented at ECOOP’22.
A paper is submitted in R2. The reviewers require changes. The paper will not be presented at ECOOP’22. Authors can resubmit at the next deadline (TBA). The same reviewers check the paper, if accepted, a pre-print is put on the ECOOP’23 website and the paper is presented in 2023.
No! But if an artifact is not provided, the authors must explain why their work is not available for repetition.
Yes! The reasons for rejecting an artifact are multiple and often stem from the quality of the packaging.
Yes! That is the whole point of allowing artifacts to be submitted together with the paper.
The Artifact Evaluation Committee as usual, but there will be an intersection between the PC and the AEC.
Use common sense. Your job is not to make your identity undiscoverable but simply to make it possible for reviewers to evaluate your submission without having to know who you are. The specific guidelines stated in the call for papers are simple: omit authors’ names from your title page, and when you cite your own work, refer to it in the third person. For example, if your name is Smith and you have worked on amphibious type systems, instead of saying “We extend our earlier work on statically typed toads [Smith 2004],” you might say “We extend Smith’s  earlier work on statically typed toads.” Also, be sure not to include any acknowledgements that would give away your identity.
Cite the code in your paper, but remove the URL and, instead say “link to repository removed for double blind review”. If you believe reviewer access to your code would help during author response, contact the chair.
No. But we recommend you do not use the same title, so that it is clearly distinguishes the papers.
Q: Am I allowed to post my paper on my web page or arXiv? send it to colleagues? give a talk about it? on social media?
We have developed guidelines to help navigate the tension between the normal communication of scientific results and actions that essentially force potential reviewers to learn the identity of authors. Roughly speaking, you may discuss work under submission, but you should not broadly advertise your work through media that is likely to reach your reviewers. We acknowledge there are gray areas and trade-offs. Things you may do:
- Put your submission on your home page.
- Discuss your work with anyone not on the review committees or reviewers with whom you already have a conflict.
- Present your work at professional meetings, job interviews, etc.
- Submit work previously discussed at an informal workshop, previously posted on arXiv or a similar site, previously submitted to a conference not using double-blind reviewing, etc.
Things you should not do:
- Contact members of the review committees about your work, or deliberately present your work where you expect them to be.
- Publicize your work on social media if wide public [re-]propagation is common (e.g., Twitter) and therefore likely to reach potential reviewers. For example, on Facebook, a post with a broad privacy setting (public or all friends) saying, “Whew, ECOOP paper in, time to sleep” is okay, but one describing the work or giving its title is not appropriate. Alternately, a post to a group including only the colleagues at your institution is fine.
Reviewers will not be asked to recuse themselves from reviewing your paper unless they feel you have gone out of your way to advertise your authorship information to them. If you are unsure about what constitutes “going out of your way”, please contact the Program Chair.
If at any point you feel that the authors’ actions are largely aimed at ensuring that potential reviewers know their identity, you should contact the Program Chair. Otherwise you should not treat double-blind reviewing differently from regular blind reviewing. In particular, you should refrain from seeking out information on the authors’ identity, but if you discover it accidentally this will not automatically disqualify you as a reviewer. Use your best judgment.
Contact the Chair, who will download the material on your behalf.
(based on the PLDI’20 DBR FAQ.)