webconf-supplementary
GitHub指导Web会议论文在12页限制下，合理分配正文、附录及外部资源。明确附录仅用于支持而非创造新主张，提供内容筛选标准及超页时的压缩策略，确保符合单PDF提交规范。
触发场景
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill webconf-supplementary -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "webconf-supplementary",
"description": "Use when deciding what belongs in the Web Conference (WWW) appendix versus the 8 main pages versus an external artifact, under the single-PDF 12-page ceiling where references and appendix share the tail, reviewers need not read past page 8, and no separate supplementary upload exists in the research tracks."
}
Web Conference Supplementary Material
The Web Conference's 2026 research tracks had no separate supplementary upload. Everything travels in one PDF: 8 pages of main paper, then references, then an optional appendix, capped at 12 pages total. That design creates a zero-sum tail — every reference line competes with appendix space — and a hard rhetorical rule: reviewers are told they need not read past page 8, so the appendix can support belief but never create it.
The three-container model
| Container | Budget | Reviewer contract | Right contents |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main paper | 8 pages | Read and judged | Claims, method, headline evidence, limitations |
| PDF tail | 12 − 8 − | refs | pages |
| External artifact | unlimited | Reached only via link | Code, data manifests, full logs |
The tail is the scarcest resource most teams misbudget. A survey-flavored web paper with 90 references can eat 2.5+ pages, leaving under 1.5 pages of appendix; a theory-flavored one with 35 references gets nearly 4. Count your tail before promising appendix sections to co-authors.
What earns tail space (and what does not)
Earns it:
- Proof details whose theorem statement and proof sketch already appear in the main text.
- The full crawling/collection protocol backing a one-paragraph summary in Section 3.
- Hyperparameter and search-space tables; per-dataset statistics manifests.
- The pseudo-code for an algorithm described prosaically in the body.
- Secondary robustness tables that repeat a main-text conclusion, not extend it.
Does not earn it:
- Any result cited in the abstract, introduction, or conclusions. If a claim's only evidence lives past page 8, the claim is unsupported in the judged document.
- The ethics or data-consent discussion for human-derived web data — reviewers weighing harms must find this in the body.
- "Additional experiments" that introduce new claims — reviewers who do read the appendix will treat unvetted claims as overreach; those who don't will never see them. Either promote to the body or cut.
Compression order when the PDF is over 12
- Move executable detail (configs, exact commands) to the artifact and leave a pointer line.
- Collapse per-dataset appendix tables into one table with grouped rows.
- Trim redundant citations — cite the survey once instead of its 12 members where the specific member isn't discussed.
- Convert appendix prose to structured tables; appendix text is skimmed anyway.
- Only then touch the main 8 pages, using
webconf-writing-stylecompression moves rather than spacing hacks —acmarttampering is detectable and treated as a formatting violation.
Anonymized linking pattern
External artifacts referenced during review must not identify authors. The stable pattern:
In the PDF (Section 3, footnote):
"Code and data manifests: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/webgraph-2F51
(anonymized for review; will be archived with a DOI upon acceptance)."
Checks before submission:
- repository has no git history, no institutional paths, no author usernames
- README written in the same anonymous voice as the paper
- dataset files carry the crawl manifest, not internal project codenames
- link actually opens in a logged-out browser session
At camera-ready the anonymous mirror is replaced by the DOI-bearing archival
deposit (see webconf-artifact-evaluation for the deposit and badge flow).
Worked budget: one paper, two viable splits
A graph-mining submission has 8.0 main pages locked and must choose its tail. Two honest allocations of the 4-page tail, for different paper shapes:
| Tail plan | References | Appendix | Fits which paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| Method-heavy | 1.5 pp (42 refs) | 2.5 pp: proof details, pseudo-code, hyperparameter grid | Theory/algorithm claims needing verification depth |
| Measurement-heavy | 2.2 pp (68 refs) | 1.8 pp: collection protocol, per-platform stats, bot-filter rules | Empirical claims needing literature coverage |
What does not exist is the fantasy allocation (2.2 pp of references and 2.5 pp of appendix). Teams discover this on deadline night when BibTeX renders; discover it two weeks earlier by compiling with the real bibliography and an appendix skeleton, then assigning the tail like any other scarce budget — explicitly, in writing, before co-authors draft appendix sections that will not fit.
Cross-track variation
The single-PDF-with-appendix rule above is the research tracks rule for 2026. Short papers ran at 4 pages including references — effectively no tail at all — and companion-proceedings calls (demos, PhD symposium, workshops) each set their own limits. Never transplant this page arithmetic across calls; reopen the specific call's page before formatting.
Note also the asymmetry at camera-ready: the proceedings budget re-labels the zones (12 pages, 8 content) but does not enlarge the content allowance, so an appendix section promoted during revision must evict something — plan the appendix as if its contents were permanent residents, not staging.
Pre-flight audit
- Total ≤ 12; main ≤ 8; nothing claim-bearing after page 8.
- Every appendix section is pointed to from the body ("full protocol in App. B") — orphan appendices signal padding.
- Every body forward-reference resolves ("App. C" exists and matches).
- Ethics/consent discussion in the body, not the tail.
- Anonymous artifact link passes the logged-out test.
Output format
[Tail budget] refs=<pages> appendix=<pages> total=<n>/12
[Misplaced content] <claims past p.8 / ethics in tail / orphan appendices>
[Compression applied] <moves 1-5 used>
[Artifact link] anonymized + reachable: yes/no
[Cross-references] body->appendix and appendix->body both resolve: yes/no
版本历史
- 9f86f09 当前 2026-07-19 17:50
