caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / Atom feed
* [Caml-list] Call for Papers: PACMPL issue ICFP 2021
@ 2021-02-02 15:57 Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ messages in thread
From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt @ 2021-02-02 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: caml-list

               PACMPL Volume 5, Issue ICFP 2021\r
                           Call for Papers\r
           Accepted papers to be invited for presentation at\r
The 26th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming\r
                            To Be Held Virtualy\r
### Important dates\r
Submissions due:    2 March 2021 (Tuesday) Anywhere on Earth\r
Author response:    20 April (Tuesday) - 23 April (Friday) 17:00 UTC\r
Notification:       7 May (Friday)\r
Final copy due:     30 June (Wednesday)\r
Conference:         22 August (Sunday) - 27 August (Friday)\r
### About PACMPL\r
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages (PACMPL\r
<>) is a Gold Open Access journal publishing\r
research on all aspects of programming languages, from design to\r
implementation and from mathematical formalisms to empirical\r
studies. Each issue of the journal is devoted to a particular subject\r
area within programming languages and will be announced through\r
publicized Calls for Papers, like this one.\r
### Scope\r
[PACMPL]( issue ICFP 2021 seeks original\r
papers on the art and science of functional programming. Submissions\r
are invited on all topics from principles to practice, from\r
foundations to features, and from abstraction to application. The\r
scope includes all languages that encourage functional programming,\r
including both purely applicative and imperative languages, as well as\r
languages with objects, concurrency, or parallelism. Topics of\r
interest include (but are not limited to):\r
* Language Design: concurrency, parallelism, and distribution;\r
   modules; components and composition; metaprogramming; macros;\r
   pattern matching; type systems; type inference; dependent types;\r
   session types; gradual typing; refinement types; interoperability;\r
   domain-specific languages; imperative programming; object-oriented\r
   programming; logic programming; probabilistic programming;\r
   reactive programming; generic programming; bidirectional\r
* Implementation: abstract machines; virtual machines;\r
   interpretation; compilation; compile-time and run-time\r
   optimization; garbage collection and memory management; runtime\r
   systems; multi-threading; exploiting parallel hardware; interfaces\r
   to foreign functions, services, components, or low-level machine\r
* Software-Development Techniques: algorithms and data structures;\r
   design patterns; specification; verification; validation; proof\r
   assistants; debugging; testing; tracing; profiling; build systems;\r
   program synthesis.\r
* Foundations: formal semantics; lambda calculus; program\r
   equivalence; rewriting; type theory; logic; category theory;\r
   monads; continuations; control; state; effects; names and binding;\r
   program verification.\r
* Analysis and Transformation: control flow; data flow; abstract\r
   interpretation; partial evaluation; program calculation.\r
* Applications: symbolic computing; formal-methods tools; artificial\r
   intelligence; systems programming; distributed systems and web\r
   programming; hardware design; databases; XML processing;\r
   scientific and numerical computing; graphical user interfaces;\r
   graphics and multimedia; GPU programming; scripting; system\r
   administration; security.\r
* Education: teaching introductory programming; parallel\r
   programming; mathematical proof; algebra.\r
Submissions will be evaluated according to their relevance,\r
correctness, significance, originality, and clarity. Each submission\r
should explain its contributions in both general and technical terms,\r
clearly identifying what has been accomplished, explaining why it is\r
significant, and comparing it with previous work. The technical\r
content should be accessible to a broad audience.\r
PACMPL issue ICFP 2021 also welcomes submissions in two separate\r
categories — Functional Pearls and Experience Reports — that must be\r
marked as such when submitted and that need not report original\r
research results. Detailed guidelines on both categories are given at\r
the end of this call.\r
Please contact the associate editor if you have questions or are\r
concerned about the appropriateness of a topic.\r
### Preparation of submissions\r
**Deadline**: The deadline for submissions is **Tuesday, March 2, 2021**,\r
Anywhere on Earth (<>).\r
This deadline will be strictly enforced.\r
**Formatting**: Submissions must be in PDF format, printable in black\r
and white on US Letter sized paper, and interpretable by common PDF\r
tools. All submissions must adhere to the "ACM Small" template that is\r
available (in both LaTeX and Word formats) from\r
<>. \r
There is a limit of **25 pages for a full paper or Functional Pearl**\r
and **12 pages for an Experience Report**; in either case, the\r
bibliography will not be counted against these limits. Submissions\r
that exceed the page limits or, for other reasons, do not meet the\r
requirements for formatting, will be summarily rejected. Supplementary\r
material can and should be **separately** submitted (see below).\r
See also PACMPL's Information and Guidelines for Authors at\r
**Submission**: Submissions will be accepted at <>\r
Improved versions of a paper may be submitted at any point before the\r
submission deadline using the same web interface.\r
**Author Response Period**: Authors will have a 72-hour period,\r
starting at 17:00 UTC on **Tuesday, April 20, 2021**, to read reviews\r
and respond to them.\r
**Supplementary Material**: Authors have the option to attach\r
supplementary material to a submission, on the understanding that\r
reviewers may choose not to look at it. This supplementary material\r
should **not** be submitted as part of the main document; instead, it\r
should be uploaded as a **separate** PDF document or tarball.\r
Supplementary material should be uploaded **at submission time**, not\r
by providing a URL in the paper that points to an external repository.\r
Authors are free to upload both anonymized and non-anonymized\r
supplementary material. Anonymized supplementary material will be\r
visible to reviewers immediately; non-anonymized supplementary\r
material will be revealed to reviewers only after they have submitted\r
their review of the paper and learned the identity of the author(s).\r
**Authorship Policies**: All submissions are expected to comply with\r
the ACM Policies for Authorship that are detailed at\r
**Republication Policies**: Each submission must adhere to SIGPLAN's\r
republication policy, as explained on the web at\r
### Review Process\r
This section outlines the two-stage process with lightweight\r
double-blind reviewing that will be used to select papers for PACMPL\r
issue ICFP 2021.  We anticipate that there will be a need to clarify\r
and expand on this process, and we will maintain a list of frequently\r
asked questions and answers on the PACMPL issue website to address\r
common concerns.\r
**PACMPL issue ICFP 2021 will employ a two-stage review process.** The\r
 first stage in the review process will assess submitted papers using\r
 the criteria stated above and will allow for feedback and input on\r
 initial reviews through the author response period mentioned\r
 previously. As a result of the review process, a set of papers will be\r
 conditionally accepted and all other papers will be rejected.\r
 Authors will be notified of these decisions on **May 7, 2021**.\r
Authors of conditionally accepted papers will be provided with\r
committee reviews along with a set of mandatory revisions. After four\r
weeks (June 4, 2021), the authors will provide a second\r
submission. The second and final reviewing phase assesses whether the\r
mandatory revisions have been adequately addressed by the authors and\r
thereby determines the final accept/reject status of the paper. The\r
intent and expectation is that the mandatory revisions can be\r
addressed within four weeks and hence that conditionally accepted\r
papers will in general be accepted in the second phase.\r
The second submission should clearly identify how the mandatory\r
revisions were addressed. To that end, the second submission must be\r
accompanied by a cover letter mapping each mandatory revision request\r
to specific parts of the paper. The cover letter will facilitate a\r
quick second review, allowing for confirmation of final acceptance\r
within two weeks. Conversely, the absence of a cover letter will be\r
grounds for the paper’s rejection.\r
**PACMPL issue ICFP 2021 will employ a lightweight double-blind\r
 reviewing process.** To facilitate this, submitted papers must\r
 adhere to two rules:\r
 1. **author names and institutions must be omitted**, and\r
 2. **references to authors' own related work should be in the third\r
 person** (e.g., not "We build on our previous work ..." but rather\r
 "We build on the work of ...").\r
The purpose of this process is to help the reviewers come to an\r
initial judgement about the paper without bias, not to make it\r
impossible for them to discover the authors if they were to\r
try. Nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens the\r
submission or makes the job of reviewing the paper more difficult\r
(e.g., important background references should not be omitted or\r
anonymized). In addition, authors should feel free to disseminate\r
their ideas or draft versions of their paper as they normally\r
would. For instance, authors may post drafts of their papers on the\r
web or give talks on their research ideas.\r
### Information for Authors of Accepted Papers\r
* As a condition of acceptance, final versions of all papers must\r
 adhere to the new ACM Small format. The page limit for the final\r
 versions of papers will be increased by two pages to help authors\r
 respond to reviewer comments and mandatory revisions: **27 pages\r
 plus bibliography for a regular paper or Functional Pearl, 14 pages\r
 plus bibliography for an Experience Report**.\r
* Authors of accepted submissions will be required to agree to one of\r
 the three ACM licensing options: open access on payment of a fee\r
 (**recommended**, and SIGPLAN can cover the cost as described next);\r
 copyright transfer to ACM; or retaining copyright but granting ACM\r
 exclusive publication rights.  Further information about ACM author\r
 rights is available from <>.\r
* PACMPL is a Gold Open Access journal, and authors are encouraged to\r
  publish their work under a CC-BY license. Gold Open Access\r
  guarantees permanent free online access to the definitive version in\r
  the ACM Digital Library, and the recommended CC-BY option also\r
  allows anyone to copy and distribute the work with attribution.\r
  Gold Open Access has been made possible by generous funding through\r
  ACM SIGPLAN, which will cover all open access costs in the event\r
  authors cannot. Authors who can cover the costs may do so by paying\r
  an Article Processing Charge (APC). PACMPL, SIGPLAN, and ACM\r
  Headquarters are committed to exploring routes to making Gold Open\r
  Access publication both affordable and sustainable.\r
* ACM offers authors a range of copyright options, one of which is\r
 Creative Commons CC-BY publication; this is the option recommended\r
 by the PACMPL editorial board. A reasoned argument in favour of this\r
 option can be found in the article [Why\r
 CC-BY?]( published by OASPA, the Open\r
 Access Scholarly Publishers Association.\r
* ACM Author-Izer is a unique service that enables ACM authors to\r
 generate and post links on either their home page or institutional\r
 repository for visitors to download the definitive version of their\r
 articles from the ACM Digital Library at no charge. Downloads\r
 through Author-Izer links are captured in official ACM statistics,\r
 improving the accuracy of usage and impact\r
 measurements. Consistently linking to the definitive version of an\r
 ACM article should reduce user confusion over article\r
 versioning. After an article has been published and assigned to the\r
 appropriate ACM Author Profile pages, authors should visit\r
 <> to learn\r
 how to create links for free downloads from the ACM DL.\r
* The official publication date is the date the papers are made\r
 available in the ACM Digital Library. This date may be up to *two\r
 weeks prior* to the first day of the conference. The official\r
 publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related\r
 to published work.\r
* Authors of each accepted submission are invited to attend and be\r
 available for the presentation of that paper at the conference. The\r
 schedule for presentations will be determined and shared with authors\r
 after the full program has been selected.\r
### Artifact Evaluation\r
Authors of papers that are conditionally accepted in the first phase\r
of the review process will be encouraged (but not required) to submit\r
supporting materials for Artifact Evaluation. These items will then be\r
reviewed by an Artifact Evaluation Committee, separate from the paper\r
Review Committee, whose task is to assess how the artifacts support\r
the work described in the associated paper. Papers that go through the\r
Artifact Evaluation process successfully will receive a seal of\r
approval printed on the papers themselves. Authors of accepted papers\r
will be encouraged to make the supporting materials publicly available\r
upon publication of the papers, for example, by including them as\r
"source materials" in the ACM Digital Library.  An additional seal\r
will mark papers whose artifacts are made available, as outlined in\r
the ACM guidelines for artifact badging.\r
Participation in Artifact Evaluation is voluntary and will not\r
influence the final decision regarding paper acceptance.\r
### Special categories of papers\r
In addition to research papers, PACMPL issue ICFP solicits two kinds\r
of papers that do not require original research contributions:\r
Functional Pearls, which are full papers, and Experience Reports,\r
which are limited to half the length of a full paper. Authors\r
submitting such papers should consider the following guidelines.\r
#### Functional Pearls\r
A Functional Pearl is an elegant essay about something related to\r
functional programming. Examples include, but are not limited to:\r
 * a new and thought-provoking way of looking at an old idea\r
 * an instructive example of program calculation or proof\r
 * a nifty presentation of an old or new data structure\r
 * an interesting application of functional programming techniques\r
 * a novel use or exposition of functional programming in the classroom\r
While pearls often demonstrate an idea through the development of a\r
short program, there is no requirement or expectation that they do\r
so. Thus, they encompass the notions of theoretical and educational\r
Functional Pearls are valued as highly and judged as rigorously as\r
ordinary papers, but using somewhat different criteria. In particular,\r
a pearl is not required to report original research, but, it should be\r
concise, instructive, and entertaining. A pearl is likely to be\r
rejected if its readers get bored, if the material gets too\r
complicated, if too much specialized knowledge is needed, or if the\r
writing is inelegant. The key to writing a good pearl is polishing.\r
A submission that is intended to be treated as a pearl must be marked\r
as such on the submission web page, and should contain the words\r
"Functional Pearl" somewhere in its title or subtitle. These steps\r
will alert reviewers to use the appropriate evaluation\r
criteria. Pearls will be combined with ordinary papers, however, for\r
the purpose of computing the conference's acceptance rate.\r
#### Experience Reports\r
The purpose of an Experience Report is to help create a body of\r
published, refereed, citable evidence that functional programming\r
really works -- or to describe what obstacles prevent it from\r
Possible topics for an Experience Report include, but are not limited to:\r
 * insights gained from real-world projects using functional programming\r
 * comparison of functional programming with conventional programming\r
   in the context of an industrial project or a university curriculum\r
 * project-management, business, or legal issues encountered when\r
   using functional programming in a real-world project\r
 * curricular issues encountered when using functional programming in\r
 * real-world constraints that created special challenges for an\r
   implementation of a functional language or for functional\r
   programming in general\r
An Experience Report is distinguished from a normal PACMPL issue ICFP\r
paper by its title, by its length, and by the criteria used to\r
evaluate it.\r
 * Both in the papers and in any citations, the title of each\r
   accepted Experience Report must end with the words "(Experience\r
   Report)" in parentheses. The acceptance rate for Experience\r
   Reports will be computed and reported separately from the rate for\r
   ordinary papers.\r
 * Experience Report submissions can be at most 12 pages long,\r
   excluding bibliography.\r
 * Each Experience Report accepted to the PACMPL issue will be\r
   presented at the conference, but depending on the number of\r
   Experience Reports and regular papers accepted, authors of\r
   Experience reports may be asked to give shorter talks.\r
 * Because the purpose of Experience Reports is to enable our\r
   community to accumulate a body of evidence about the efficacy of\r
   functional programming, an acceptable Experience Report need not\r
   add to the body of knowledge of the functional-programming\r
   community by presenting novel results or conclusions. It is\r
   sufficient if the Report states a clear thesis and provides\r
   supporting evidence. The thesis must be relevant to the PACMPL\r
   issue, but it need not be novel.\r
The review committee will accept or reject Experience Reports based on\r
whether they judge the evidence to be convincing. Anecdotal evidence\r
will be acceptable provided it is well argued and the author explains\r
what efforts were made to gather as much evidence as\r
possible. Typically, more convincing evidence is obtained from papers\r
which show how functional programming was used than from papers which\r
only say that functional programming was used. The most convincing\r
evidence often includes comparisons of situations before and after the\r
introduction or discontinuation of functional programming. Evidence\r
drawn from a single person's experience may be sufficient, but more\r
weight will be given to evidence drawn from the experience of groups\r
of people.\r
An Experience Report should be short and to the point: it should make\r
a claim about how well functional programming worked on a particular\r
project and why, and produce evidence to substantiate this claim. If\r
functional programming worked in this case in the same ways it has\r
worked for others, the paper need only summarize the results;\r
the main part of the paper should discuss how well it worked and in\r
what context. Most readers will not want to know all the details of\r
the project and its implementation, but the paper should characterize\r
the project and its context well enough so that readers can judge to\r
what degree this experience is relevant to their own projects. The\r
paper should take care to highlight any unusual aspects of the\r
project. Specifics about the project are more valuable than\r
generalities about functional programming; for example, it is more\r
valuable to say that the team delivered its software a month ahead of\r
schedule than it is to say that functional programming made the team\r
more productive.\r
If the paper not only describes experience but also presents new\r
technical results, or if the experience refutes cherished beliefs of\r
the functional-programming community, it may be better to submit it as\r
a full paper, which will be judged by the usual criteria of novelty,\r
originality, and relevance. The associate editor will be happy to\r
advise on any concerns about which category to submit to.\r
### ICFP Organizers\r
General Chair: Sukyoung Ryu (KAIST, South Korea)\r
Accessibility Co-Chairs: Lindsey Kuper (UC Santa Cruz, USA), Kathrin\r
Stark (Princeton University, USA)\r
Artifact Evaluation Co-Chairs: Gabriel Scherer (INRIA Saclay, France),\r
Brent Yorgey (Hendrix College, USA)\r
Industrial Relations Co-Chairs: Alan Jeffrey (Roblox, USA),\r
Simon Marlow (Facebook, England)\r
Programming Contest Co-Organisers: Alex Lang, Jasper Van der Jeugt\r
(Fugue, Switzerland)\r
Publicity and Web Chair: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (Indiana University, USA)\r
Student Research Competition Chair: Anders Miltner (University of\r
Texas, USA)\r
Student Volunteer Co-Chairs: Lily Bryant (University of British\r
Columbia, Canada), Jaemin Hong (KAIST, South Korea), Hanneli Tavante\r
(McGill University, Canada)\r
Video Co-Chairs: Leif Andersen (Northeastern University, USA),\r
Benjamin Chung (Northeastern University, USA)\r
Workshops Co-Chairs: Leonidas Lampropoulos (University of Maryland, USA),\r
Zoe Paraskevopoulou (Princeton University, USA)\r
### PACMPL Volume 5, Issue ICFP 2021\r
Associate Editor: Ronald Garcia, (University of British Columbia, Canada)\r
Review Committee:\r
Zena Ariola (University of Oregon, USA)\r
Stephanie Balzer (Carnegie Mellon University, USA)\r
Matteo Cimini (UMass Lowell, USA)\r
Youyou Cong (Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan)\r
Harley Eades (University of Augusta, USA)\r
Andrew Gordon (Microsoft Research & University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom)\r
Benjamin Greenman (Brown University, USA)\r
Arjun Guha (Northeastern University, USA)\r
Jurriaan Hage (Utrecht, The Netherlands)\r
Favonia  (University of Minnesota, USA)\r
Suresh Jagannathan (Purdue University, USA)\r
Patricia Johann (Appalachian State University, USA)\r
Ralf Jung (Max Planck Institute, Germany)\r
Ekaterina Komendantskaya (Heriot-Watt, Scotland)\r
Leonidas Lampropoulos (University of Maryland, USA)\r
Kazutaka Matsuda (Tohoku University, Japan)\r
Akimasa Morihata (Univeristy of Tokyo, Japan)\r
Stefan Muller (Illinois Institute of Technology, USA)\r
Max New (Wesleyan University, USA)\r
Rishiyur Nikhil (Bluespec , USA)\r
Cyrus Omar (University of Michigan, USA)\r
Brigitte Pientka (McGill University, Canada)\r
Norman Ramsey (Tufts University, USA)\r
Christine Rizkallah (University of New South Wales, Australia)\r
Taro Sekiyama (National Institute for Informatics, Japan)\r
Eijiro Sumii (Tohoku University, Japan)\r
Amin Timany (Aarhus University, Denmark)\r
Mitchell Wand (Northeastern University, USA)\r
Steve Zdancewic (University of Pennsylvania, USA)\r

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 1+ messages in thread

only message in thread, back to index

Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-02-02 15:57 [Caml-list] Call for Papers: PACMPL issue ICFP 2021 Sam Tobin-Hochstadt

caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list

Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror

AGPL code for this site: git clone public-inbox