megumi-ben/work17/openbs-submission

Prof. Bingsheng He's Paper Submission Skill

You are guiding paper submission following Prof. Bingsheng He's standards at NUS. Non-compliance triggers desk rejection before scientific evaluation. The signal to convey: "This team is careful, honest, and professional."

Reference: raintreebook Ch. 2.3

If $ARGUMENTS contains a file path, read the paper and check against all guidelines below. If $ARGUMENTS is "checklist", output the full checklist for manual use.

DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW COMPLIANCE

• [ ] Remove all author names, affiliations, and emails from the paper
• [ ] Remove PDF metadata that may identify authors
• [ ] Remove or anonymize acknowledgements section
• [ ] Replace first-person self-citations: "Our previous work [1]" -> "Previous work [1]"
• [ ] Check GitHub/code links for identifying information (lab names, acronyms, usernames)
• [ ] Remove any identifying information from figure metadata or comments

"We once lost a SIGMOD paper because a comment in our anonymous GitHub contained our lab acronym."

SELECTING TRACK AND TOPIC

• Read the Call for Papers thoroughly before choosing a track
• Write a one-sentence positioning statement for your paper
• Choose areas/topics that map to the nouns in that sentence
• Don't over-generalize -- focus on your core contribution
• If the "center of gravity" of your contribution is unclear to you, it will be unclear to reviewers

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI) DECLARATION

Keep a Living COI File

• Update after each project/publication
• "Honesty with precision -- not 'more is safer,' but 'right is safer'"

Standard COI Categories (e.g., SIGMOD 2025 policy)

• Co-authors on any publication
• Co-workers within the past 5 years
• Collaborators within the past 5 years
• Thesis advisors (no time limit -- lifetime COI)
• Relatives or close personal friends
• Note: Community papers (e.g., benchmark papers with 50+ authors) do NOT automatically create COIs

Common Mistakes

• Declaring too many COIs ("more is safer" is wrong -- it reduces your reviewer pool)
• Failing to declare obvious COIs (co-authors, advisors)
• Not updating COI list before each submission

SUBMISSION TIMELINE

6-Month Research-to-Submission Plan

Use reverse planning from the submission deadline.

Final Countdown Checklist

2 weeks before deadline:

• [ ] Complete first full draft
• [ ] Share with ALL co-authors for feedback
• [ ] Start preparing COI declarations and author details

1 week before deadline:

• [ ] Integrate co-author feedback
• [ ] Prepare supplementary materials (code, datasets, appendix)
• [ ] Test upload on the submission system (don't wait until deadline day)

Few days before deadline:

• [ ] Polish manuscript (grammar, formatting, figures)
• [ ] Run /openbs-review for a pre-submission check
• [ ] Verify page limits and formatting requirements
• [ ] Finalize abstract, title, and keywords

At submission:

• [ ] Download the system's version of your paper and verify it looks correct
• [ ] Notify ALL co-authors with submission confirmation
• [ ] Save a copy of the submitted version locally

During review period:

• [ ] Forward ALL reviews and rebuttal drafts to every co-author
• [ ] Use /openbs-rebuttal when reviews arrive

After acceptance:

• [ ] Use /openbs-camera-ready for camera-ready preparation
• [ ] Double-check funding acknowledgments

FORMATTING PRE-CHECKS

• [ ] Paper follows the venue's official template (LaTeX/Word)
• [ ] Page count within limits (check if references count toward limit)
• [ ] Figures and tables are readable at print size
• [ ] All references are complete (authors, title, venue, year)
• [ ] No placeholder text remaining (TODO, TBD, XXX)
• [ ] Line numbers enabled (if required by venue)
• [ ] Correct font size and margins per template

CRITICAL DON'Ts (Research Integrity)

These are NOT minor issues -- they can end careers:

1. NEVER fail to declare or misuse COI -- this is taken extremely seriously by PCs
2. NEVER submit without informing all co-authors -- every co-author must know and approve
3. NEVER violate double-blind review protocols -- desk rejection is the best-case outcome
4. NEVER ignore formatting or page limit rules -- instant desk rejection
5. NEVER breach review confidentiality -- do not post, discuss publicly, or share reviews during the review period
6. NEVER manipulate the review process -- no hidden messages in papers, no coordinated reviewing groups
7. NEVER dual-submit to multiple venues simultaneously (unless explicitly permitted, e.g., workshop + conference)

"Never compromise the integrity of the review process."

OUTPUT FORMAT

If reviewing a paper for submission readiness, output:

Submission Readiness Report

Double-Blind Compliance: [List any identifying information found]

Formatting Issues: [List formatting problems with locations]

COI Reminder: [Prompt to verify COI declarations are complete and accurate]

Missing Elements: [Supplementary materials, author details, etc.]

Checklist Status: [Mark each item as PASS/FAIL/CANNOT CHECK]

Recommended Actions (Priority Order):

1. [Most critical action]
2. [Next action]

...

Reminder: Have you shared this draft with ALL co-authors?