| name | eurosys-submission |
| description | Use when auditing a EuroSys submission before a HotCRP upload — abstract registration versus full-paper gates, the 12-page technical-content budget with free references, the acmart sigplan review/anonymous template and text block, double-blind hygiene, and the CFP warning that formatting or anonymization violations are not reviewed. |
EuroSys Submission
Run this audit before touching the round's HotCRP instance. Anchors below are the
EuroSys 2027 cycle as rendered on 2026-07-08 from 2027.eurosys.org/cfp.html and the
eurosys27-spring / eurosys27-fall HotCRP sites. EuroSys reissues its CFP per
edition and per round, so the live CFP always outranks this file.
The two gates of a round
Each EuroSys round opens with abstract registration one week before the paper
deadline. Registration is where the title, abstract, author list, topics, and
conflicts become fixed inputs to reviewer assignment; the paper upload a week later
only swaps in the PDF.
| 2027 fall round item | Value (verified 2026-07-08) |
|---|
| Abstract registration | September 17, 2026, AoE |
| Full paper | September 24, 2026, AoE |
| Portal | eurosys27-fall.hotcrp.com |
| Notification | January 29, 2027 |
The spring 2027 round (abstracts May 7, papers May 14, 2026) has already closed as
of 2026-07-08, so a new submission today is a fall-round submission.
Length and layout rules
- 12 pages of technical content, maximum. References ride free — as many pages
as needed. Do not starve the bibliography to rescue a figure.
- Paper size A4 or US letter, with every character and figure inside a
178 x 229 mm (7 x 9 in) block, two columns separated by at least 8 mm.
- LaTeX authors are pointed at
acmart with the sigplan option, in review mode:
\documentclass[sigplan,twocolumn,review,anonymous]{acmart}
% Use the paper ID issued at abstract registration, not author names:
\acmSubmissionID{123}
- The CFP states that submissions violating the formatting or anonymization rules
will not be considered for review. At EuroSys this is not an idle threat — it
is the cheapest filter the chairs have across two rounds of load.
Anonymity as EuroSys defines it
The standard asked for is a good-faith effort, judged by whether identity leaks
"explicitly or by implication":
- No names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or grant IDs anywhere in the PDF.
- Third-person self-citation; never "as we showed in [7]".
- Scrub PDF metadata and embedded file properties before upload.
- If the paper describes a deployment only your organization runs, abstract the
operator without inventing data.
- Linked repositories must be anonymized mirrors, not lab GitHub accounts.
Pre-upload checklist
| Check | Pass condition |
|---|
| Abstract registered on time | HotCRP entry exists before the abstract gate |
| Page budget | ≤ 12 pages before the references begin |
| Text block | Nothing outside 178 x 229 mm; column gap ≥ 8 mm |
| Template mode | review,anonymous options active; paper ID on page 1 |
| Identity sweep | Metadata, acknowledgments, self-citations, repo links clean |
| Dual submission | Not concurrently under review at another archival venue |
| Resubmission legality | Not a same-season EuroSys reject from the previous edition |
| Topics and conflicts | Complete in HotCRP, since assignment runs off them |
That resubmission row is EuroSys-specific: a paper rejected at a given round may
not return until the same round of the next edition, so confirm the manuscript's
EuroSys history before registering it (see eurosys-review-process).
Habits imported from other venues that break here
- From USENIX venues: expecting a single-column submission format or an
appendix allowance — EuroSys reviews in the two-column ACM layout, and
anything beyond references needs the round's explicit permission (待核实).
- From NeurIPS-style venues: expecting a checklist to carry the
reproducibility story — EuroSys has no checklist ritual; the evidence
discipline lives in the paper and the artifact instead.
- From journals: expecting to update the manuscript during review —
between the paper gate and notification the PDF is frozen; plan the
submission as final, not as an opening bid.
- From single-deadline conferences: treating the abstract gate as
optional paperwork — at EuroSys it fixes reviewer bidding inputs, and a
sloppy registered abstract buys mismatched reviewers.
HotCRP field audit
The PDF is half the submission; the form is the other half.
- Title and abstract in HotCRP must match the PDF exactly — divergence
confuses bidding and looks careless at PC time.
- Topic selections drive assignment within a broad PC; choose the two or
three that name the paper's jury, not every topic it touches.
- Conflicts: declare per the CFP's definition, comprehensively, once —
chairs audit both missing and padded conflict lists.
- Author list completeness at registration matters even though reviewers
never see it: it is the basis of conflict screening.
- Any round-specific questions (artifact intent, ethics statements,
AI-use declarations — 待核实 per round) get real answers, not
placeholders.
Last-72-hours order of operations
- Freeze the evaluation numbers; regenerate every plot from the frozen data.
- Rebuild with the review-mode template and re-check the page count — review mode
and camera mode paginate differently.
- Run the identity sweep on the final PDF, not on an earlier draft.
- Register the abstract early; HotCRP lets you refine the PDF until the paper gate.
- Re-open the CFP once more: EuroSys rounds occasionally adjust rules mid-cycle.
Output format
[EuroSys gate] fall 2027 round (or current round per live CFP)
[Readiness] upload-ready / fixable / blocked
[Format findings] <page budget / text block / template / paper ID>
[Anonymity findings] <leak locations or clean>
[Policy findings] <dual submission / resubmission ban / conflicts>
[Ordered fixes] <what to do before the abstract and paper gates>
