pldi-review-process
GitHub解析PLDI双盲审稿流程，涵盖冬审、二月作者回应、三月通知及后续 artifact 评估与 PACMPL 发表。提供针对 PLDI 实践者评审的应对策略，包括区分拒稿原因（如安全性、评估或匹配度）并指导如何优化论文以争取杰出论文奖。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill pldi-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "pldi-review-process",
"description": "Use when interpreting PLDI's review pipeline — double-blind HotCRP reviewing by a PL-implementor PC, the February author-response window, March notification, up-to-10% Distinguished Paper selection, and how post-acceptance artifact evaluation and PACMPL publication follow the decision."
}
PLDI Review Process
Model the pipeline from the 2026 cycle (pldi26.sigplan.org, read 2026-07-08), then re-anchor every date to the current edition: papers due November 13, 2025; reviews written over the winter; author response February 17-21, 2026; decisions March 5, 2026; artifact evaluation after acceptance; publication as PACMPL Issue PLDI; talks in Boulder June 17-19, 2026. Chairs rotate per edition — 2026 ran under Program Chair Manu Sridharan — so process details are one-cycle facts.
Who is reading you
The PC is dominated by people who have shipped compilers, runtimes, analyzers, and verifiers. Practical consequences:
- Claims are audited mechanically. A reviewer may re-derive your complexity bound, check your semantics against a corner case, or mentally rerun your benchmark protocol. Vague spots read as hidden flaws.
- "Would this survive contact with real programs?" is the ambient question. Toy-language-only evaluations need an explicit argument for why the toy captures the hard part.
- Double-blind is real but statistical: some reviewers will guess your lab; the process still requires the paper not to confirm it.
Stage-by-stage
| Stage (2026 anchors) | What happens | Your lever |
|---|---|---|
| Nov deadline | Triage: format, page cap, anonymity, scope | Zero summary-rejection triggers (pldi-submission) |
| Winter reviewing | 3+ reviews scored on novelty, soundness, evaluation, clarity | Already spent; the paper argues alone |
| Feb 17-21 response | Authors answer factual errors and direct questions | The one paragraph that saves a soundness doubt (pldi-author-response) |
| PC discussion | Reviews + response reconciled; champions matter | A response that arms your champion with quotable pointers |
| Mar 5 notification | Accept / reject (any shepherding terms come with the letter) | Deliver conditions precisely and fast |
| Post-acceptance | Artifact evaluation, badges, PACMPL production | pldi-artifact-evaluation, pldi-camera-ready |
Whether a given cycle uses conditional acceptance or formal shepherding was not confirmed for 2026 (待核实) — read your notification letter as the authority.
Distinguished papers
Up to 10% of accepted papers may be designated Distinguished Papers; PLDI 2025 named 6 of 89 (about 6.7%). You cannot apply for it, but the profile is consistent: a crisp problem, a mechanism others can reuse, an evaluation beyond reproach, and usually a strong artifact. Aim the paper at that profile and let the committee do what it does.
Reading a decision
- Reject with soundness objections: fix before anything else; the same PC community reviews for POPL and OOPSLA, and a known-broken theorem follows you.
- Reject on evaluation: usually the cheapest repair — the SIGPLAN Empirical
Evaluation checklist (
pldi-reproducibility) is the reviewers' own rubric. - Reject on fit ("this is a POPL paper", "this is engineering"): a routing
signal, not a quality verdict; rerun
pldi-topic-selectionhonestly. - Accept: your response commitments are now contractual; see
pldi-camera-ready.
Output format
[Stage] pre-submission / in review / response window / decided
[Review posture] champion? soundness doubts? evaluation objections?
[Response leverage] <which objections are answerable from the submitted PDF>
[Decision reading] accept path / repair-and-resubmit / re-route venue
[Next dates] <from the live cycle pages, with 待核实 flags>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 17:13
