The ESOP 2015 Call for Paper is in the next tab.

A “frequently asked question” rubric list all sorts of important and mundane details about the reviewing process.

Accepted Papers

Call for Papers

ESOP is devoted to fundamental issues in the specification, design, analysis, and implementation of programming languages and systems. ESOP seeks contributions on all aspects of programming language research; theoretical and/or practical advances are welcome. ESOP also seeks to encourage repeatable research; papers describing reproduction studies and experimental methodologies will be considered. Authors concerned about the appropriaeness of a topic should consult with the program chair prior to submission.

Submissions

Papers must be in English presenting original research. They must be unpublished and not submitted for publication elsewhere. In particular, simultaneous submission to multiple ETAPS conferences is forbidden. The proceedings will be published in the Advanced Research in Computing and Software Science (ARCoSS) subline of Springer’s Lecture Notes in Computer Science series.

Papers must follow the formatting guidelines specified by Springer and be submitted electronically in PDF through the HotCRP author interface. ESOP has a page limit of 25 pages. Additional material intended for reviewers but not for publication in the final version may be placed in a clearly marked appendix that is not included in the page limit. Reviewers are at liberty to ignore appendices and papers must be understandable without them. Submissions not adhering to the specified format and length may be rejected immediately.

Reviewing

The following is a short overview of how ESOP’15 papers will be reviewed. Before the rebuttal phase authors will receive at least three reviews consisting of an overall score (1: Strong reject, to 4: Strong accept), a reviewer expertise (1: No familiarity, to 4: Expert), and authors comments. When writing their rebuttals, authors are encouraged to focus on factual errors in the reviews and reviewer questions (if any). As a rule of thumb, papers without sufficient expertise (i.e. no reviewer with an expertise of 3 or 4) or all reject reviews (overall scores of 1 or 2) are likely to be rejected. Papers out of scope may be rejected without review. Each paper will be assigned a guardian during reviewing, the role of the guardian is to ensure that sufficient expertise is available to properly review the paper, to ensure quality of the reviews, and to write a summary which will be returned to the authors. The summary will contain the consensus opinion and recommendations following PC discussions. Authors may use the reviews in any which way they see fit.

ESOP does not require the submission of abstracts.

See the FAQ for more information about how to submit.

ESOP 2015 strives for transparency, we will be posting as much as information about the conference as possible. This page focuses on the issues related to submissions.

• Page limit: The 25 LNCS-format page limit is new this year. It includes all elements of your paper including references. Any material above and beyond the limit may be ignored.

• Appendices: There are no limits on appendices. But reviewers don’t have to read them.

• Can a paper be rejected if a reviewer has not read the appendix: Yes. In case the appendix contains a critical piece of information, and the reviewer chose not to read it, the paper may be rejected.

• Must abstracts be registered ahead of time: No.

• Blindness: Submission are “single-blind”, i.e. authors may use their own names to their heart’s content.

• Rebuttals: Authors will be provided an opportunity to respond to questions from reviewers during a rebuttal phase. Rebuttals should answer all questions marked as “Questions for Authors” in the reviews. Rebuttals may respond to factual errors in reviews. Rebuttals should not introduce new information (such as results of experiments run after submission). Rebuttals are not mandatory – it is fine to not rebut.

• When are authors notified: As soon as the PC meeting ends.

• Are scores released: Yes. Authors will get both the overall score and the reviewer expertise.

• What is the schedule for the PC: Monday Oct 20 — Assignments released; Monday Nov 10 — Guardians submit reviews of their papers; Monday Dec 1 — All reviews are due; Wednesday Dec 3 — Rebuttal starts; Friday Dec 5 — Rebuttal ends; Thursday Dec 11 — PC Meeting start; Friday Dec 12 — PC Meeting ends & notification.

• What are the instructions given to the reviewers:

  • Out of scope papers will be pre-rejected.
  • No quotas: if a paper makes a contribution it should be accepted.
  • Write reviews as if the paper was accepted and your role was to help authors improve it. Avoid lists of defects, have lists of suggestions instead. Be constructive. The quality and tone of reviews is just as important as the outcome.
  • If clarifications are required, add a section “Questions for the Authors”.
  • All reviews are your own. Ask the GUARDIAN to add a sub-reviewer.
  • If a paper is outside your area of expertise: do your best.
  • A score of 1 means you’ll argue against a paper, a 4 you’ll speak in favor.
  • You’ll get between 10-12 papers, and you’ll be a GUARDIAN on 4 of them.
  • Enter your reviews AS SOON AS POSSIBLE to allow GUARDIANS to spot issues early.
  • PC Summaries and scores will be released to the authors.
  • Anything after page 25 of a paper is an appendix. Read what you feel like.
  • A paper may be rejected if crucial material is only in appendix.

• What are the instruction for Guardians: Each paper has a guardian. As a GUARDIAN you should:

  • Review guarded papers first;
  • Check expertise of reviewers (if necessary ask them), if there’s a chance the paper may not have an expert, ask for a sub-reviewer;
  • Read the reviews before the rebuttal and make sure they are clear, encourage other reviewers to be constructive if necessary;
  • Read the rebuttals. Check with other reviewers about the points raised;
  • Write the PC SUMMARY. Sum up reasons for the decision and convey relevant PC discussions.

• What are the instructions for the PC Meeting:

  • All papers will be discussed
  • GUARDIANs introduce their papers
  • Papers without at least one expert or with only scores of 1 & 2 are likely rejects
  • PC papers with one or more review with a score of 1 are likely rejects
  • PC summaries are written during the meeting, notifications will be on the same day

• Conflicts of Interest:

  • We use the SIGPLAN policy: Conflicts typically exist between advisor and students, employer and employees (for up to 2 years), author and co-authors (for up to 2 years after publication), people in the same institution (for up to 2 years; branches of large companies or different location of research institutes are considered to be the same institution). If a reviewer feels unable to render an objective judgement for any reason, he or she should notify the PC chair.
  • COI PC members will not take part in the discussions of the paper in question.
  • The PC chair is aware all reviewers assignments, but will not see the reviews or be present for discussions of COI papers.
  • Peter Thiemann will act as stand in PC Chair.