ElectronicSubmission

Submission is closed.

Submissions

10 pages in SIGPLAN proceedings style (sigplanconf.cls) reporting research results and/or experience related to the topics list on the call for papers (PC co-chairs can advise on appropriateness). We particularly encourage original high-quality reports on applying GPCE technologies to real-world problems, relating ideas and concepts from several topics, or bridging the gap between theory and practice.

How to submit

The submission process is slightly different from previous years. This year GPCE is using a double-blind reviewing process. Please read carefully the submission instructions.

Don't Panic!
Beyond replacing "\author{...}" there are no mandatory changes required of
authors to conform with the double-blind review process.  Authors can,
if they choose, do more thorough anonymization (see below for suggestions).  
We are sympathetic to authors who have learned about this requirement close 
to the deadline--- If you cannot meet the anonymization requirements in time, 
submit anyway, and get an anonymized version to us as quickly as possible.

Submission will consist of three steps:

1. Anonymize your paper by replacing the author name(s) with "Submitted for blind review." Do not list institutions or email addresses. The extent to which the remainder of the paper is stripped of identifying information is left to your discretion (see below).
2. Create an account and upload your paper to the submission site.
3. Send email to gpce06-chairs-l-owner@mailman.rice.edu identifying any conflicts of interest PC members may have in reviewing your paper. A conflict of interest occurs if within the past two years, you have collaborated with, co-authored a paper with, or worked in the same department or lab as the PC member, or the PC member is a close personal friend, relative, former student or primary advisor. It is your responsibility to identify conflicts of interest. Due to the blind reviewing process, PC members will not be able to judge whether they are in conflict. Failing to identify conflicts of interest may result in rejection of your paper.

Once you have read the directions, please proceed to online paper submission.

Anonymity Requirements for Double-Blind Reviewing

All research papers submitted to GPCE 2006 will undergo a "double-blind" reviewing process: reviewers will not be told the identity of the authors. We are following the CHI model, which represents a compromise between the increased objectivity of anonymous reviewing, and the feeling of some authors that their identity is integral to understanding their work. We require that you remove obvious identification from your paper-- no authors and institutions are to be listed in the title-- but the extent to which the body of the paper is anonymized is left to your discretion. Authors who wish to completely strip their paper of any information that might reveal or hint at their identity are encouraged to do so. Authors who feel their identity is crucial to understanding the context of their work may choose to be less thorough in anonymizing their paper.

For information on the rationale behind double-blind reviewing, please see Kathryn McKinley's note.

Submissions MUST adhere to the following requirement:

• Exclude identifying information from the title area and headers of the submission. Do not enter author names, affiliations, or contact information (location, phone, email, etc.) in the title area of the paper. A suitable substitute is:

\author{Submitted for Blind Review}

You will asked to be enter the author names and contact information during the electronic submission process. This information MUST be entered, but will not be provided to reviewers.

Submissions MAY follow the following guidelines for increased anonymity, if the authors so choose. These are based on the SIGMOD submission guidelines.

• Do not acknowledge funding sources(s).
• Do not acknowledge research group members or other colleagues or collaborators.
• Name your file based on the assigned submission number. For example, if your assigned paper number is 352, then name your submitted file 352.pdf. Do not use your last name as the file name.
• Source file naming must also be done with care. For example, if your name is Jane Smith and you submit a PDF file generated from a .dvi file called Jane-Smith.dvi, one can infer your authorship by looking into the PDF file.

You should also use care in referring to related past work, particularly your own, in the paper. For example, if you are Jane Smith, the following text gives away the authorship of the submitted paper:

In our previous work [1,2], we presented two algorithms for .... In this paper, we build on that work by ...

Bibliography
[1] Jane Smith, "A Simple Algorithm for ...," Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 1997, pp. 1 - 10.
[2] Jane Smith, "A More Complicated Algorithm for..," Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 1998, pp. 34 - 44

The solution is to reference your past work in the third person, just as you would any other piece of work that is related to the submitted paper. This allows you to set the context for the submitted paper, while at the same time preserving anonymity:

In previous work [1,2], algorithms were presented for ... In this paper, we build on that work by ...

You should still include all relevant work of your own in the references, using the above style -- omitting them could potentially reveal your identity by negation. However, self-references should be limited to the essential ones, and extended versions of the submitted paper (e.g., technical reports or URLs for downloadable versions) should not be referenced.

Common sense and careful writing can go a long way toward preserving anonymity without diminishing the quality or impact of a paper. The goal is to preserve anonymity while still allowing the reader to fully grasp the context (related past work, including your own) of the submitted paper.