By setting a time band, the program will dim events that are outside this time window. This is useful for (virtual) conferences with a continuous program (with repeated sessions). The time band will also limit the events that are included in the personal iCalendar subscription service.
(GMT-12:00) AoE (Anywhere On Earth) (GMT-11:00) Midway Island, Samoa (GMT-09:00) Hawaii-Aleutian (GMT-10:00) Hawaii (GMT-09:30) Marquesas Islands (GMT-09:00) Gambier Islands (GMT-08:00) Alaska (GMT-07:00) Tijuana, Baja California (GMT-08:00) Pitcairn Islands (GMT-07:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) (GMT-06:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada) (GMT-06:00) Chihuahua, La Paz, Mazatlan (GMT-07:00) Arizona (GMT-06:00) Saskatchewan, Central America (GMT-05:00) Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterrey (GMT-05:00) Easter Island (GMT-05:00) Central Time (US & Canada) (GMT-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) (GMT-04:00) Cuba (GMT-05:00) Bogota, Lima, Quito, Rio Branco (GMT-04:00) Caracas (GMT-03:00) Santiago (GMT-04:00) La Paz (GMT-03:00) Faukland Islands (GMT-04:00) Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil (GMT-03:00) Atlantic Time (Goose Bay) (GMT-03:00) Atlantic Time (Canada) (GMT-02:30) Newfoundland (GMT-03:00) UTC-3 (GMT-03:00) Montevideo (GMT-02:00) Miquelon, St. Pierre (GMT-02:00) Greenland (GMT-03:00) Buenos Aires (GMT-03:00) Brasilia, Distrito Federal, Brazil (GMT-02:00) Mid-Atlantic (GMT-01:00) Cape Verde Is. (GMT) Azores (UTC) Coordinated Universal Time (GMT+01:00) Belfast (GMT+01:00) Dublin (GMT+01:00) Lisbon (GMT+01:00) London (GMT) Monrovia, Reykjavik (GMT+02:00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna (GMT+02:00) Belgrade, Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Prague (GMT+02:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris (GMT+01:00) West Central Africa (GMT+02:00) Windhoek (GMT+03:00) Athens (GMT+03:00) Beirut (GMT+02:00) Cairo (GMT+03:00) Gaza (GMT+02:00) Harare, Pretoria (GMT+03:00) Jerusalem (GMT+03:00) Minsk (GMT+03:00) Syria (GMT+03:00) Moscow, St. Petersburg, Volgograd (GMT+03:00) Nairobi (GMT+03:30) Tehran (GMT+04:00) Abu Dhabi, Muscat (GMT+04:00) Yerevan (GMT+04:30) Kabul (GMT+05:00) Ekaterinburg (GMT+05:00) Tashkent (GMT+05:30) Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi (GMT+05:45) Kathmandu (GMT+06:00) Astana, Dhaka (GMT+07:00) Novosibirsk (GMT+06:30) Yangon (Rangoon) (GMT+07:00) Bangkok, Hanoi, Jakarta (GMT+07:00) Krasnoyarsk (GMT+08:00) Beijing, Chongqing, Hong Kong, Urumqi (GMT+08:00) Irkutsk, Ulaan Bataar (GMT+08:00) Perth (GMT+08:45) Eucla (GMT+09:00) Osaka, Sapporo, Tokyo (GMT+09:00) Seoul (GMT+09:00) Yakutsk (GMT+10:30) Adelaide (GMT+09:30) Darwin (GMT+10:00) Brisbane (GMT+11:00) Hobart (GMT+10:00) Vladivostok (GMT+11:00) Lord Howe Island (GMT+11:00) Solomon Is., New Caledonia (GMT+11:00) Magadan (GMT+12:00) Norfolk Island (GMT+12:00) Anadyr, Kamchatka (GMT+13:00) Auckland, Wellington (GMT+12:00) Fiji, Kamchatka, Marshall Is. (GMT+13:45) Chatham Islands (GMT+13:00) Nuku'alofa (GMT+14:00) Kiritimati
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, modeling, 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.
Papers accepted at either of the rounds will be published in the volume of PACMPL(OOPSLA) and invited to be presented at the SPLASH conference in October .
PACMPL(OOPSLA) has two rounds of reviewing. The final outcome of each round can be one of Accept, Revise or Reject.
Accept: Accepted papers will appear in the volume of PACMPL(OOPSLA).
Revise: 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 authors resubmit, they 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, and either accepted or rejected. Resubmitted papers will retain the same reviewers throughout the process. Papers with a Revise outcome in Round 2 and an Accept outcome in the subsequent Round 1 will appear in the volume of PACMPL(OOPSLA).
Reject: Rejected papers will not be included in the volume of PACMPL(OOPSLA). Papers in this category are not guaranteed a review if resubmitted less than one year from the date of original submission. A paper will be judged to be a resubmission if it is substantially similar to the original submission. The judgment that a paper is a resubmission of the same work and whether, in this case, it will be reviewed or not is at the discretion of the Chair. Obviously, this same policy applies to papers that were rejected for inclusion in the volume of PACMPL(OOPSLA).
Each round of reviewing consists of two phases. The first phase evaluates the papers and results in an early notification of Reject, Revise, or Conditional Accept. During the first phase, authors will be able to read their reviews and respond to them. The second phase is restricted to conditionally accepted papers. Authors must make a set of mandatory revisions. The second phase assesses whether the required revisions have been addressed. The outcome can be Accept, Revise or Reject.
Submitted papers (including resubmissions) must be at most 23 pages using the template below. The references do not count towards this limit. 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. The PACMPL templates used for SPLASH (Microsoft Word and LaTeX) can be found at the SIGPLAN author information page. In particular, authors using LaTeX should use the acmart-pacmpl-template.tex file (with the acmsmall option). 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 ()&#;, or a parenthetic phase, such as &#;The lambda calculus (Church ) was intended as a foundation for mathematics&#;.
PACMPL uses double-blind reviewing. Authors&#; identities are only revealed if a paper is accepted. Papers must
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. Submitters should also be aware of ACM&#;s Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism. Submissions are expected to comply with the ACM Policies for Authorship.
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.
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), but payment is not required. The official publication date is the date the journal are 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.
We consider the following criteria when evaluating papers:
Novelty: The paper presents new ideas and results and places them appropriately within the context established by previous research.
Hongyu Dinghao supply professional and honest service.
Importance: The paper contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field. We also welcome papers that diverge from the dominant trajectory of the field.
Evidence: The paper presents sufficient evidence supporting its claims, such as proofs, implemented systems, experimental results, statistical analyses, case studies, and anecdotes.
Clarity: The paper presents its contributions, methodology and results clearly.
No! It is understood that some papers have no artifacts. But if an artifact is not provided when the claims in the paper refer to an artifact, 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.
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 ],&#; 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.
No.
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 Review Committee Chairs.
No. But we recommend you do not use the same title, so that it is clearly distinguishes the papers.
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:
Things you should not do:
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 Review Committee Chairs.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.
Learn more
It seems your browser doesn't support them and this affects the site functionality.It seems your browser doesn't support them and this affects the site functionality.
The company is the world’s best Hongyu Dinghao supplier. We are your one-stop shop for all needs. Our staff are highly-specialized and will help you find the product you need.