socc-related-work
GitHub用于指导ACM SoCC论文相关工作部分的写作，确保同时覆盖系统与数据管理领域文献。强调以差异为核心而非罗列引用，维护双盲评审匿名性，并处理预印本或先前版本的重叠问题，以提升论文新颖性评估的合规性与说服力。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill socc-related-work -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "socc-related-work",
"description": "Use when positioning an ACM SoCC submission against both the systems literature (OSDI, NSDI, EuroSys, ATC, SOSP, SoCC) and the data-management literature (SIGMOD, VLDB), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations dual-anonymous, and handling concurrent, preprint, and prior-version overlap."
}
SoCC Related Work
Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. SoCC reviewers come from both SIGMOD and SIGOPS, so a credible related-work section reaches both lanes — the systems flagships and the data-management flagships — and states where your paper sits relative to the nearest prior work as a delta, not a list. A bibliography that cites only one community tells a reviewer from the other that the paper may be a visitor. Reopen the current call for dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors.
Positioning checks
- Separate the cloud novelty from the engineering effort. What is new: a mechanism, a measurement, a benchmark, a deployment lesson, or a cost model — and is it new to both communities or only one?
- Cover both lanes. SoCC reviewers expect the systems venues (OSDI/NSDI/EuroSys/ATC/SOSP/SoCC) and the data venues (SIGMOD/VLDB) where relevant, not just the papers nearest your mechanism.
- Write delta-first. Each closely related paper gets one sentence naming what it did and one naming what you do differently — not a summary. Position, don't catalog.
- Preserve dual anonymity. Cite your own prior work in the third person and never link reviewers to an identity-revealing preprint, repository, deployment, or homepage.
- Declare overlap with any prior workshop version (e.g., a HotCloud/HotStorage short paper) or concurrent submission; do not re-submit archival work as new.
Cloud literature lanes
| Lane | Typical venues | What SoCC reviewers check |
|---|---|---|
| Systems flagships | OSDI, SOSP, NSDI, EuroSys, ATC, SoCC | Whether the nearest systems mechanism is compared or distinguished |
| Data management | SIGMOD, VLDB, ICDE | Whether the data-systems predecessors (storage, query, transactions) are engaged |
| Cloud + big-data infra | SoCC, VLDB, OSDI | Whether prior resource-mgmt / serverless / big-data-systems work is credited |
| Measurement | IMC, SoCC, SIGMETRICS | Whether prior traces/measurement studies on your workload are acknowledged |
| Adjacent (when relevant) | ML-systems (MLSys), networking | Whether borrowed methods are cited to their real origin |
A bibliography spanning the systems flagships and the data flagships signals command of SoCC's joint field; one that cites only your own subarea suggests the delta may be smaller than claimed.
Delta-first positioning vignette
Suppose the paper proposes a tail-aware serverless autoscaler and a supporting measurement. Its nearest neighbors: a systems-flagship autoscaler that scales on concurrency (mechanism, no tail target), a SoCC serverless paper on cold starts (adjacent problem, different lever), and a data/measurement study of function invocation traces (characterization, no mechanism). The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — a tail-SLO controller where the flagship used concurrency, a provisioning lever where the cold-start paper optimized startup, and a built system where the measurement study offered only characterization.
Concurrent and prior-version judgment calls
[Concurrent arXiv work] cite neutrally, state the technical difference, avoid unverifiable
priority claims; keep the citation dual-anonymous
[Your workshop version] a HotCloud/HotStorage-style short paper is usually citable and
non-archival, but confirm against the current CFP and phrase so
anonymity survives
[Prior short/poster] declare the overlap and state what the full paper adds beyond it
[Archival status unclear] declare the overlap in the submission form rather than guessing a
chair's interpretation
Eligibility red flags
- Substantial text overlap with a published paper by the same authors (self-plagiarism risk).
- A "new" measurement that re-reports a prior trace's numbers without a new question.
- Citations exclusively to one community (all systems or all data), signaling the paper may be a visitor rerouted without reframing for SoCC's joint audience.
Output format
[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Lanes covered] <systems flagships / data management / cloud-infra / measurement / adjacent>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> one-line delta>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none / declare: what>
[Novelty sentence] <SoCC-ready contribution contrast against the nearest systems AND data prior work>
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 17:41
