| name | pods-workflow |
| description | Use when planning an ACM PODS project timeline across its multiple submission cycles per year, from venue fit through the EasyChair abstract-then-paper deadlines, the 48-hour rebuttal, the accept/reject/revision decision and shepherded revision round, PACMMOD-track publication, the arXiv full version, and presentation — with backward-planning offsets for a theory paper and honest handling of cycle choice. |
PODS Workflow
Use this as the project-management skill for a PODS submission. Replace every date with the current
official timetable and work backwards from the abstract deadline, which precedes the full-paper
deadline by about a week in each cycle. PODS runs multiple submission cycles per year and every
paper may hit a revision round with a shepherd, so plan for a two-round-per-cycle process, not a
single accept/reject.
PODS is a symposium whose papers are journal articles in the PACMMOD PODS track: it has no
standing editor-in-chief and no APC in the systems sense. Rotating leadership is the per-edition
PODS PC Chair (PODS 2026: Ke Yi, HKUST, verified 2026-07-09) appointed with ACM SIGMOD and SIGACT;
the cost model is registration and at least one author presents. Chairs rotate yearly — re-check the
organization page rather than carrying a name forward.
Choosing a cycle
PODS's multi-cycle calendar is a planning lever, not just a constraint. As of 2026-07-09, PODS 2026
(Bengaluru) has already met, so the live target is PODS 2027 (Huntington Beach): Cycle 1 closed
30 May 2026, and Cycle 2 (abstract+COI 10 Oct 2026, paper 17 Oct 2026) is the next live deadline.
- Submit when the proof is complete, not when the cycle is nearest. A rushed, gap-filled proof
draws a reject that burns the cycle; PODS's next cycle is only a season away, so the cost of waiting
one cycle is far smaller than at a once-a-year venue.
- A reject cannot be immediately re-submitted. Recent SIGMOD/PODS policy bars resubmitting
rejected research-track work for roughly a year of cycles — so a premature submission can cost more
than one cycle. Verify the exact wording before relying on the next cycle as a safety net.
Milestones
- Venue fit: confirm PODS over SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE and over ICDT (
pods-topic-selection).
- Result lock: fix the model, the theorem statements, and complete every proof; the appendix is
incorporated at submission, so proofs cannot be deferred to a later "full version."
- Abstract + COI: register the real title, abstract, authors, and declared conflicts of interest
by the earlier abstract deadline of the chosen cycle.
- Submission: upload the anonymized
acmsmall PDF (body + references + appendix) on EasyChair by
the full-paper deadline.
- Rebuttal: use the ~48-hour window to correct factual misreadings only.
- Decision: accept / reject / revision (minor or major).
- Revision (if invited): implement the revision items within the given window; a shepherd judges
whether the revision is satisfactory.
- Acceptance: prepare the PACMMOD camera-ready, post the full version on arXiv, register, and
present at PODS.
Backward plan from the paper deadline
| Weeks out (heuristic) | Theory-paper milestone |
|---|
| 10+ | Model and problem fixed; main theorem statements conjectured |
| 8 | Core proofs complete; lower-bound/upper-bound gap closed or scoped honestly |
| 6 | Full draft in acmsmall; every stated theorem has a complete proof in body or appendix |
| 4 | Appendix assembled and incorporated; anonymity sweep on paper and appendix |
| 3 | Internal read by a theory colleague who checks a proof end to end |
| 2 | Tighten definitions, related-work delta, page budget (15 pp excl. refs) |
| 1 | Final proof-read of the hardest proof; COI list prepared |
| 0 | Abstract by its earlier cutoff, then paper + appendix on EasyChair |
These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current Important Dates page,
never to a previous cycle's calendar.
Failure modes by stage
- A proof still open at week 6 forces a "sketch in the appendix" that the reviewers will not
accept — the classic PODS reject in the making. Close the gap or scope the claim.
- Leaving the appendix to the final week produces incomplete proofs and identity leaks under
double-anonymity (a named system, an acknowledgement).
- Skipping the colleague read forfeits the one chance to hear "your Lemma 4 is circular" from a
friend instead of a reviewer.
- Treating a revision as automatic and under-budgeting the revision window turns a winnable
minor revision into a reject when the shepherd is unsatisfied.
Coordination notes
- Assign one author to own the proof appendix and its anonymity, and another to own the EasyChair
fields and COI list; shared ownership is how both slip.
- Archive the exact submitted PDF and appendix — the revision round and the arXiv full version must
correspond to them precisely.
Output format
[Current stage] idea / proofs / writing / abstract-registered / submitted / revision / accepted
[Chosen cycle] cycle 1 / cycle 2, with the next official deadline (date + source, or unknown)
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness — usually a proof gap and the appendix>
[Risk register] <open proof / page budget / anonymity / revision window / arXiv full version>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>
