/asplos-camera-ready

name: asplos-camera-ready
description: Use when converting an ASPLOS acceptance or Major Revision decision into a publishable ACM paper within the six-week window — de-anonymization, ACM rights and template obligations, the revision change note, artifact-appendix integration and badge placement, and Digital Library metadata checks.

ASPLOS Camera-Ready

The camera-ready deadline at ASPLOS 2027 sits roughly **six weeks after notification** — verified indirectly, via the CFP's statement that Major Revisions are resubmitted "at the camera ready deadline (6 weeks from notification)" (checked 2026-07-08; the exact date and page allowance for camera-ready are 待核实 and arrive with the acceptance email). The window is shared by two very different tasks, so the first step is knowing which track you are on.

Two tracks through the same deadline

| Track | What is due | Judged by | |---|---|---| | **Accepted paper** | Final, de-anonymized, ACM-formatted PDF + forms | Publication staff + shepherd if assigned (shepherding for 2027: 待核实) | | **Major Revision** | The *revised submission* — still a reviewed document | The program committee, as a submission on record |

Do not apply camera-ready instincts to a Major Revision: it stays within submission rules (anonymity unless told otherwise — confirm in the decision letter), and its companion document is a **change note keyed to the decision letter**, item by item, with pointers to where each required change landed. If this revision follows an earlier revision, the note describes deltas relative to the *previous revision*, per the CFP's revision-counts-as-submission rule.

De-anonymization, done as a diff

Reversing double-blind is not just adding an author block. Work from the submission-time anonymity sweep, inverting each entry:

• Restore author names, affiliations, and emails in the ACM template's format.
• Convert third-person self-citations back to natural first-person where it reads

better — and check none of them still says "the authors of [12]" about yourself.

• Restore acknowledgments and grant numbers; keep the **GenAI disclosure** placed

per ACM policy (immediately before References when in Acknowledgments).

• Re-point anonymized supplemental citations to their real, now-citable targets.
• Replace neutralized infrastructure descriptions with the real testbed identity

where confidentiality allows.

# residue sweep on the final PDF
pdftotext final.pdf - | grep -niE 'anonym|blind|supplemental material \[|placeholder' | head
pdfinfo final.pdf | grep -iE 'author|creator'   # metadata now SHOULD name you

ACM-specific obligations

• The **rights form** drives the copyright block: complete it early, because the

generated rights text must be pasted into the paper before the final build, and DOI/ISBN metadata follows from it.

• Verify title and author-list **exact match** between the rights form, the PDF,

and the submission system — mismatches stall Digital Library ingestion and corrupt citation records for years.

• ASPLOS proceedings publish in the ACM DL in multiple volumes per edition under

the multi-cycle model; your cycle determines your volume. Production workflow details (TAPS or classic, camera-ready page allowance) for 2027: 待核实 with the acceptance instructions.

Artifact integration

Camera-ready is when artifact evaluation converges with the paper (`asplos-artifact-evaluation`):

• The **Artifact Appendix** is finalized against the actual archived artifact —

its dependency list is a promise readers will act on.

• **Badges** earned (Available / Functional / Reproducible) are attached by the

authors or ACM; confirm placement follows the 2027 instructions rather than copying a previous year's badge layout.

• The archival deposit (DOI-issuing repository) must be public before the paper

claims it; a dead artifact link in the DL is permanent embarrassment.

Six-week sequence

1. **Day 0-2:** read the decision letter twice; extract every instruction and deadline into a checklist; identify track (accept vs revision). 2. **Week 1:** rights form; template migration; de-anonymization diff. 3. **Weeks 2-4:** shepherd/letter-required edits; final artifact deposit; appendix sync. For revisions: the required experiments, and nothing speculative. 4. **Week 5:** full residue sweep; metadata check; co-author read of the exact PDF. 5. **Week 6:** upload with margin; confirm the system shows the final version; archive the tagged source.

Presentation and registration obligations for 2027 (who must attend Heraklion, April 11-15, 2027; fees; remote options) were 待核实 at pack-check time — read the acceptance email's requirements before booking or skipping travel.

Final-build quality gate

Run on the exact PDF going to production, not the working draft:

• Fonts embedded; figures vector where possible; colors legible in grayscale

(the DL's print-view and many readers' printers are unforgiving).

• Every cross-reference resolves — a "Figure ??" in the published record is

permanent, unlike in a submission.

• The bibliography still satisfies the full-name/DOI rules after camera-ready

additions (new "since submission" citations arrive malformed by default).

• Appendix/artifact pointers updated from submission-time wording ("anonymous

supplemental material") to their published targets.

• Title capitalization, author ordering, and affiliation strings match what

co-authors expect to see indexed — this is the last moment ordering disputes can be resolved quietly.

After publication: the unglamorous checklist

• Verify the DL landing page within days of proceedings release: PDF correct,

authors ordered, badges displayed, artifact link resolving. Ingestion errors fixed early are emails; fixed late they are erratum processes.

• Keep the archived artifact's README pointing at the DOI-versioned release,

and route post-publication fixes to a new tagged version rather than mutating