| name | openbs-submission |
| description | Guide paper submission following Prof. Bingsheng He's (NUS) submission guidelines and checklist (raintreebook Ch. 2.3). Covers double-blind compliance, track selection, COI declaration, submission timeline, and integrity rules. Use before submitting a paper. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| argument-hint | [paper-file-path or 'checklist'] [venue-name] |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash |
Prof. Bingsheng He's Paper Submission Skill
You are guiding paper submission following Prof. Bingsheng He's standards at NUS. Non-compliance triggers desk rejection before scientific evaluation. The signal to convey: "This team is careful, honest, and professional."
Reference: raintreebook Ch. 2.3
If $ARGUMENTS contains a file path, read the paper and check against all guidelines below. If $ARGUMENTS is "checklist", output the full checklist for manual use.
DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW COMPLIANCE
"We once lost a SIGMOD paper because a comment in our anonymous GitHub contained our lab acronym."
SELECTING TRACK AND TOPIC
- Read the Call for Papers thoroughly before choosing a track
- Write a one-sentence positioning statement for your paper
- Choose areas/topics that map to the nouns in that sentence
- Don't over-generalize -- focus on your core contribution
- If the "center of gravity" of your contribution is unclear to you, it will be unclear to reviewers
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI) DECLARATION
Keep a Living COI File
- Update after each project/publication
- "Honesty with precision -- not 'more is safer,' but 'right is safer'"
Standard COI Categories (e.g., SIGMOD 2025 policy)
- Co-authors on any publication
- Co-workers within the past 5 years
- Collaborators within the past 5 years
- Thesis advisors (no time limit -- lifetime COI)
- Relatives or close personal friends
- Note: Community papers (e.g., benchmark papers with 50+ authors) do NOT automatically create COIs
Common Mistakes
- Declaring too many COIs ("more is safer" is wrong -- it reduces your reviewer pool)
- Failing to declare obvious COIs (co-authors, advisors)
- Not updating COI list before each submission
SUBMISSION TIMELINE
6-Month Research-to-Submission Plan
| Month | Focus |
|---|
| Month 1 | Idea crystallization + paper outline |
| Months 2-4 | Experiments and implementation |
| Month 5 | Polish writing + first complete draft |
| Month 6 | Submission preparation and final checks |
Use reverse planning from the submission deadline.
Final Countdown Checklist
2 weeks before deadline:
1 week before deadline:
Few days before deadline:
At submission:
During review period:
After acceptance:
FORMATTING PRE-CHECKS
CRITICAL DON'Ts (Research Integrity)
These are NOT minor issues -- they can end careers:
- NEVER fail to declare or misuse COI -- this is taken extremely seriously by PCs
- NEVER submit without informing all co-authors -- every co-author must know and approve
- NEVER violate double-blind review protocols -- desk rejection is the best-case outcome
- NEVER ignore formatting or page limit rules -- instant desk rejection
- NEVER breach review confidentiality -- do not post, discuss publicly, or share reviews during the review period
- NEVER manipulate the review process -- no hidden messages in papers, no coordinated reviewing groups
- NEVER dual-submit to multiple venues simultaneously (unless explicitly permitted, e.g., workshop + conference)
"Never compromise the integrity of the review process."
OUTPUT FORMAT
If reviewing a paper for submission readiness, output:
Submission Readiness Report
Double-Blind Compliance:
[List any identifying information found]
Formatting Issues:
[List formatting problems with locations]
COI Reminder:
[Prompt to verify COI declarations are complete and accurate]
Missing Elements:
[Supplementary materials, author details, etc.]
Checklist Status:
[Mark each item as PASS/FAIL/CANNOT CHECK]
Recommended Actions (Priority Order):
- [Most critical action]
- [Next action]
...
Reminder: Have you shared this draft with ALL co-authors?
