Updated for the Summer deadline
In an effort to respect the efforts of reviewers and in the interest of fairness to all prospective authors, we request that all submissions to ASPLOS’23 follow the formatting and submission rules detailed below. Submissions that violate these instructions may not be reviewed, at the discretion of the program chairs.
Update: Based on feedback received, we have changed the submission format for the Summer deadline. Papers will be limited to 11 pages (not including references) with no word count restriction. No restrictions will be placed on figure formatting; however, authors are strongly encouraged to consider the readability of their paper when sizing their figures.
No extended abstracts will be required for the Summer deadline of ASPLOS’23.
To help you with formatting your papers, we have provided a sample paper formatted to meet ASPLOS’23 requirements and updated to reflect the Summer formatting requirements.
All questions regarding paper formatting and submission should be directed to the program co-chairs.
Please follow the link to submit your paper: https://asplos23summer.hotcrp.com/
(The spring site can be found here: https://asplos23spring.hotcrp.com/)
|Paper registration deadline:||June 30, 2022 (5:59:59pm US Eastern Time)|
|Full paper submission deadline:||July 7, 2022 (5:59:59pm US Eastern Time)|
- Papers should contain a maximum of 11 pages of single-spaced two-column text, not including references.
- Papers must be submitted in printable PDF format.
- Text must be in a minimum 10pt (not 9pt) font.
- No page limit for references for papers.
- Each reference must specify all authors (no et al.).
- Proceedings will appear in the ACM Digital Library up to two weeks before the conference.
Paper Preparation Instructions
Papers must be submitted in printable PDF format and should contain a maximum of 11 pages of single-spaced two-column text, not including references. You may include any number of pages for references, but see below for more instructions. If you are using LaTeX to typeset your paper, we suggest that you use the template that we provide. If you use a different software package to typeset your paper, please adhere to the guidelines given in the table below.
|Page limit||11 pages, not including references|
|Paper size||US Letter 8.5in x 11in|
|Separation between columns||0.25in|
|Body font size||10pt|
|Abstract font||10pt, italicized|
|Section heading font||12pt, bold|
|Subsection heading font||10pt, bold|
|Caption font||9pt, bold|
|References||8pt, no page limit, list all authors’ names.|
Please ensure that you include page numbers with your submission. This makes it easier for reviewers to refer to different parts of your paper when they provide comments. Please ensure that your submission has a banner at the top of the title page, as shown in our sample paper, which contains the submission number and the notice of confidentiality. If using the template, just replace XXX with your submission number.
Reviewing will be double blind; therefore, do not include any author names or affiliations on any submitted documents except in the space provided on the submission form.
Please not to reveal the author or affiliation information through side channels:
- The metadata included in the PDF should not give away such information.
- If you are improving upon your prior work, refer to your prior work in the third person and include a full citation for the work in the bibliography. For example, if you are building on your own prior work in the papers [2, 3, 4], you would say something like: “While the authors of [2, 3, 4] did X, Y, and Z, this paper additionally does W, and is therefore much better.” Do NOT omit or anonymize references for blind review, unless your own prior work appeared in IEEE CAL or workshops without archived proceedings, as discussed later in this document.
- If your system is already released to the public, please rename your system in your submission.
- You should avoid revealing affiliation (e.g., by identifying your company’s name) in your paper. Instead, please use a generic name, like “a cloud service provider X”.
If concealing system name or affiliation would make your paper difficult to understand, contact the program chairs to discuss exceptions to this policy.
(For more frequently-asked questions about double-blind reviewing, please consult this FAQ from PLDI 2020.)
Violating the above anonymity requirement will be rejected without review. If you have any concerns, please contact the program chairs before your paper submission.
Figures and Tables. Ensure that the figures and tables are legible. Many reviewers print the papers in gray-scale. Therefore, if you use colors for your figures, ensure that the different colors are highly distinguishable in gray-scale. As noted in the formatting instructions, they must be at least column width.
References. There is no length limit for references. Each reference must explicitly list all authors of the paper. Knowing all authors of related work will help find the best reviewers. Since there is no length limit for the number of pages used for references, there is no need to save space here. Please start references on a new page to allow more accurate word counting.
Evaluation. Authors of empirical papers are encouraged to consider the seven categories of the SIGPLAN Empirical Evaluation Guidelines when preparing their submissions.
Paper and Abstract Submission Instructions
Declare all the authors of the paper upfront. Addition/removal of authors once the paper is accepted will have to be approved by the program chairs, since it potentially undermines the goal of eliminating conflicts for reviewer assignment.
Areas and Topics
ASPLOS emphasizes multidisciplinary research. Submissions should ideally emphasize synergy of two or more ASPLOS areas: architecture, programming languages, operating systems, and related areas (broadly interpreted). Authors should indicate these areas on the submission form.
You should also indicate at most 4 topics on the submission form for optimal reviewer match. If more than 4 topics are selected, some topics will be randomly dropped by program chairs.
If you are unsure whether your paper falls within the scope of ASPLOS, please check with the program chairs– ASPLOS is a multidisciplinary conference and encourages new topics.
Authors of resubmitted work need to describe in a separate note the changes since the previous submission(s). This description helps reviewers who may have reviewed a previous draft of the work to appreciate any improvements to currently submitted work. Please try to limit this to one page. Note: Papers rejected from previous ASPLOS’23 deadlines cannot be resubmitted to ASPLOS’23. These resubmission instructions apply to papers rejected from a different conference.
Declaring Conflicts of Interest
Authors must register all their conflicts on the paper submission site. Conflicts are needed to ensure appropriate assignment of reviewers. If a paper is found to have an undeclared conflict that causes a problem OR if a paper is found to declare false conflicts in order to abuse or “game” the review system, the paper may be summarily rejected.
Please declare a conflict of interest (COI) with the following for any author of your paper:
- Your Ph.D. advisor(s), post-doctoral advisor(s), Ph.D. students, and post-doctoral advisees, forever.
- Family relations by blood or marriage and close personal friends, forever (if they might be potential reviewers).
- People with whom you have collaborated in the last four years, including
- co-authors of accepted/rejected/pending papers.
- co-PIs of accepted/rejected/pending grant proposals.
- People who shared your primary institution(s) in the last four years, or where one is actively engaged in discussions about employment with the other person’s institution.
- When there is a direct funding relationship between an author and the potential reviewer (e.g., the reviewer is a sponsor of an author’s research on behalf of his/her company or vice versa).
- Among PIs of research structures supported under the same umbrella funding award who 1) participate regularly in non-public meetings sponsored by that umbrella award, and 2) are regularly exposed to presentations or discussions of unpublished work at such meetings.
You need not and should not declare a COI for the following cases:
- “Service” collaborations such as co-authoring a report for a professional organization or an open-source community, serving on a program committee, or co-presenting tutorials, do not themselves create a conflict of interest.
- Co-authoring a paper that is a compendium of various projects without direct collaboration among the projects does not constitute a conflict among the authors of the different projects.
- Internships constitute a conflict of interest during the period of employment of the intern, but not thereafter, unless some other provision applies (e.g., co-authorship or ongoing research collaboration after the internship). Graduate students are not presumed to have an automatic COI with their undergraduate institution. On the other hand, prospective graduate students do have a COI with any institution they have applied to if they are actively engaged in discussions with any faculty member at that institution. Once they join an institution to pursue graduate studies, automatic COIs with any other prospective institutions sunset. In all these cases, the collaboration COI above still applies.
- You must not declare a COI with a reviewer just because that reviewer works on topics similar to or related to those in your paper.
Please declare all your conflicts, not just restricted to the PC and ERC, as we may occasionally ask for reviews from people outside the PC and the ERC.
When in doubt, contact the program chairs.
Concurrent Submissions and Workshops
By submitting a manuscript to ASPLOS ’23, the authors guarantee that the manuscript has not been previously published or accepted for publication in a substantially similar form in any conference, journal, or workshop. The only exceptions are (1) workshops without archived proceedings such as in the ACM digital library (or where the authors chose not to have their paper appear in the archived proceedings), or (2) venues, such as IEEE CAL, where there is an explicit policy that such publication does not preclude longer conference submissions. These are not considered prior publications. Technical reports and papers posted on public social media sites, Web pages, or online repositories, such as arxiv.org, are not considered prior publications either. In these cases, the submitted manuscript may ignore the posted work to preserve author anonymity. The authors also guarantee that no paper that contains significant overlap with the contributions of the submitted paper will be under review for any other conference, journal, or workshop during the ASPLOS ’23 review period. Violation of any of these conditions will lead to rejection. As always, if you are in doubt, it is best to contact the program chairs. Finally, we also note that the ACM Plagiarism Policy (http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/plagiarism_policy) covers a range of ethical issues concerning the misrepresentation of other works or one’s own work.
- Authors are not allowed to contact reviewers or PC members to encourage or solicit them to bid on any paper.
- Authors are not allowed to attempt to sway a reviewer to review any paper positively or negatively.
- Authors are not allowed to contact reviewers or PC members requesting any type of information about the reviewing process, either in general or specifically about submitted papers.
- Authors are not allowed to contact reviewers or PC members to ask about the outcomes of any papers.
- Authors must also abide by the ACM ethics policy. Violation of the ACM ethics policy may result in rejection of the submission and possible action by the ACM.
- Authors are not allowed to advertise their submissions or related technical reports and postings (e.g., to arxiv.org or online repositories) on social media or community blogs and webpages during the period starting two weeks before the submission deadline and ending when the ASPLOS’23 acceptance results are public.
Several ideas in this document and parts of the text have been taken from previous conferences, so we thank their program chairs. In particular, Shan Lu and Thomas Wenisch (ASPLOS’22), Emery Berger and Christos Kozyrakis (ASPLOS’21), Luis Ceze and Karin Strauss (ASPLOS’20), Emmett Witchel and Alvy Lebeck (ASPLOS ’19), Ricardo Bianchini and Vivek Sarkar (ASPLOS ’18), John Carter (ASPLOS ’17), Yuanyuan Zhou (ASPLOS ’16), Sandhya Dwarkadas (ASPLOS ’15), Sarita Adve (ASPLOS ’14), Steve Keckler (ISCA ’14), Margaret Martonosi (ISCA ’13), Onur Mutlu (MICRO ’12), and Michael L. Scott (ASPLOS ’12).
 Leslie Lamport. LATEX: A Document Preparation System. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 2nd Edition, 1994.
 Firstname1 Lastname1 and Firstname2 Lastname2. A very nice paper to cite. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, 2012.
 Firstname1 Lastname1, Firstname2 Lastname2, and Firstname3 Lastname3. Another very nice paper to cite. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2011.
 Firstname1 Lastname1, Firstname2 Lastname2, Firstname3 Lastname3, Firstname4 Lastname4, and Firstname5 Lastname5. Yet another very nice paper to cite, with many author names all spelled out. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, 2011.