| name | wsdm-camera-ready |
| description | Use when preparing a WSDM camera-ready after acceptance - de-anonymization order, ACM rights and TAPS production into the Digital Library proceedings, CCS concepts and keywords, page-allowance verification, artifact link restoration, and registration/presentation duties at a single-track winter conference. |
WSDM Camera-Ready
Turn an accepted WSDM paper into its archival form in the ACM Digital Library.
WSDM proceedings are ACM proceedings (WSDM '26 is DOI 10.1145/3773966; each
edition gets its own volume), so the mechanics run through ACM's standard
production chain. Warning up front: the pack could not verify the current
edition's camera-ready deadline or final page allowance - both are 待核实 items
that the acceptance email and author-kit page settle, and nothing here
substitutes for them.
The order of operations that avoids rework
1. Read the acceptance email twice; extract deadline, page allowance,
required class options, and the rights-form sender to whitelist.
2. Complete the ACM e-rights form FIRST - it generates the exact
copyright block and \setcopyright values your LaTeX must carry.
3. De-anonymize: author block, third-person self-citations back to
first person where natural, acknowledgements and grants restored.
4. Restore real artifact URLs (the anonymous repo becomes the public
one) and re-run every link.
5. Add/verify CCS concepts and keywords via the ACM CCS tool.
6. Rebuild with the camera-ready class options; check the allowance.
7. Submit source (TAPS-style production expects LaTeX/Word source,
not just a PDF); fix validation errors early - TAPS queues clog
near deadlines.
8. Register an author and confirm who presents (talk and/or poster).
Steps 2 before 3-6 matters: the rights confirmation dictates copyright text,
DOI string, and reference format, and TAPS-produced output will be rejected or
regenerated if the rights block is wrong.
De-anonymization is an editing pass, not a toggle
Removing anonymous from the class options is the trivial part. The real work:
- Self-citations written as "Prior work [12] showed..." to hide identity often
read strangely once names return; decide sentence by sentence whether to
restore first person.
- The rounded or role-anonymized platform descriptions (see
wsdm-submission)
can now be made precise if your organization's disclosure review permits it.
Industry authors: start internal publication approval the day of acceptance -
it is the most common cause of missed camera-ready deadlines, not LaTeX.
- Acknowledge funders and colleagues; ACM's authorship policy governs who may be
listed as an author, and additions after acceptance typically need chair
approval - ask, never quietly add.
Reviewer-requested changes without a rebuttal record
Because WSDM historically has no rebuttal, there is no author-committed change
list from a discussion phase. The reviews and the SPC meta-review are still a
soft contract: implement the factual and presentational fixes they request, and
keep a one-page internal log of what changed. If the meta-review conditions
acceptance on specific fixes, treat those as hard requirements and make them
findable (a sentence in the right section beats a silent table tweak).
Production checklist
| Item | Check | Common failure |
|---|
| Rights form | Completed by the listed corresponding author | Form sat in a spam folder |
| Copyright block | Matches e-rights output exactly | Stale \setcopyright from a template |
| Page allowance | Camera-ready cap per the author kit (待核实 each edition) | Assuming the submission cap carries over |
| CCS + keywords | Generated from the CCS tool, pasted as XML/commands | Hand-typed concepts that fail validation |
| Metadata | Title/authors in the form == PDF exactly, including accents | Unicode mismatch breaking DL indexing |
| Artifact links | Public repo resolvable, tagged release, license file | Link still pointing at the anonymous mirror |
| Ethics section | Retained in final form | Deleted to reclaim space |
| ORCID | Current ACM production requests ORCIDs for authors | One coauthor without an ORCID at deadline |
Edge cases that eat deadlines
- Author changes. Adding, removing, or reordering authors after acceptance
needs explicit chair approval under ACM authorship norms; requests sent the
week of the camera-ready deadline often cannot be processed in time. Raise
them the day of acceptance.
- Title or abstract changes. Meta-review-driven retitles are usually fine
but must be mirrored in the production system's metadata, or the DL landing
page and the PDF will disagree forever.
- Preprint posture. Posting the accepted version to arXiv is common in
this community, but verify the rights form's language about accepted-version
posting and embargoes before uploading; the form you signed in step 2
governs, not habit.
- Figure regressions. TAPS-style recompilation with the publisher's tool
chain can shift floats and break subfigure references that looked fine
locally. Recheck every
\ref in the produced PDF, not your local build.
- Third-party content. A screenshot of a platform UI or a licensed
dataset's example rows may require permission statements at production time;
the anonymized submission hid the problem, the camera-ready surfaces it.
Money and presence
- ACM's open-access arrangements (ACM Open) determine whether your institution
faces an APC-like charge for open access; WSDM-specific terms and any
registration-bundled publication fee are 待核实 per edition - verify on the
edition's registration page before budgeting.
- WSDM is small and traditionally single-track: an accepted long paper's talk is
in front of essentially the whole community, and the poster session is a real
hiring/collaboration floor. Decide the presenter early, check visa lead times
for the host country (2027: Hong Kong, February 15-19), and confirm whether
the edition requires in-person presentation - the pack found no verified
remote-presentation policy for current editions.
Two-week runbook (adjust to the real deadline)
Day 0-1 acceptance email parsed; e-rights kicked off; disclosure
review opened (industry authors)
Day 2-5 de-anonymization edit pass; meta-review fixes implemented
Day 6-8 artifact goes public: real repo, license, tagged release,
archival snapshot; links restored in the source
Day 9-11 CCS concepts, ORCID sweep, metadata parity check
Day 12 production submission; validation errors fixed same day
Day 13-14 buffer for the error you did not predict
Output format
[Camera-ready status] on track / at risk (deadline: <from acceptance email>)
[Rights] e-rights done -> copyright block synced: yes / no
[De-anonymization] author block / self-citations / acks / links: done or pending
[Allowance] final page count vs verified cap: pass / over / cap unverified
[Meta-review conditions] <fix -> location implemented>
[Presence] registrant, presenter, visa lead time, disclosure approval status
