enter search term and/or author name
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages does not accept unsolicited submissions. Each issue of the journal has a Principal Editor and is devoted to a particular subject area (broadly construed) within programming languages. Manuscripts for consideration in a future issue of PACMPL are submitted in response to an appropriate Call for Papers.
The following essential information is common to all issues of PACMPL:
In addition, reviewers should note any special instructions regarding the reviewing of submissions communicated by the Principal Editor.
After the submission deadline, the Principal Editor may reject any papers that do not comply with any common or special instructions regarding the preparation of submissions found in the Call for Papers and will assign each remaining paper to a minimum of three reviewers.
Two rounds of reviewing contribute to the final selection of papers. The first reviewing round assesses the papers according to the quality criteria outlined in the Call for Papers and results in the selection of a subset of submissions that are either accepted as-is or are deemed potentially acceptable. All other papers are rejected in the first round. Authors of potentially acceptable papers are requested to improve specific aspects of the research and the paper. Authors are given a short period of time to perform the revisions and re-submit the paper. The second and final reviewing round has the same reviewers assess how the revision requests have been acted upon by the authors and whether the final paper maintains, or even improves, the level of contribution of the original submission. Revisions that significantly lessen the contribution of the work, or that fail to adequately address the reviewers' original concerns, will lead to the paper's rejection.
Note that while always conforming to the above guidelines, as well as the principles of the Proceedings of the ACM (PACM) journal series in general, review processes may vary between issues of PACMPL. For example, an issue may or may not employ double-blind review. Similarly, an issue may or may not permit an author-response period during the first reviewing round, to give authors a chance to comment on reviews before the initial decision is made. These review process variations arise from the experience of the community in determining (and experimenting with) what leads to best decisions. The PACMPL Advisory Board considers this dynamism to be a healthy practice that engages the community in continually seeking to improve its editorial processes. The specific review process used will be included in the Call for Papers for and the front-matter of the PACMPL issue.
Individuals reviewing a paper under consideration for PACMPL should review the following ACM and SIGPLAN documents: