imc-supplementary

name	imc-supplementary
description	Use when deciding what belongs in an ACM IMC paper body versus its appendix and released artifact, covering the acmart page limits, the rule that decision-critical evidence and the Ethics discussion stay in the reviewed pages, double-blind supplementary material, and how to split a measurement paper between body, appendix, and dataset.

IMC Supplementary

Use this when assembling IMC supplementary material. IMC's acmart format gives an unlimited appendix, which tempts authors to offload the argument — but the governing rule is strict: the page-limited body must be self-contained and decision-complete. Reviewers read the appendix and the artifact at their discretion; anything the decision depends on lives in the body.

What goes where

Content	Body (within page limit)	Appendix / released artifact
The measurement question and the headline finding	Yes	—
Vantage-point summary + coverage/representativeness argument	Yes	Full per-vantage-point table
Methodology sufficient to judge soundness	Yes	Full configs, seed/target lists
Key results, confidence intervals, and their limitations	Yes	Secondary plots, full result tables
The Ethics discussion	Yes (section; details may extend to appendix)	IRB form, extended safety analysis
Raw/large datasets, logs, scripts	—	Yes (released artifact)
Reproduction instructions	A pointer	The README and run scripts

If a reviewer would need to open the appendix or artifact to know whether to accept, the paper is mis-partitioned — move that evidence into the body.

The unlimited-appendix trap

IMC's appendix is unlimited but may not be used to abuse the page limit. Consequences:

• Keep the finding, the vantage-point justification, the core methodology, the headline results, and the limitations in the body — they are decision-critical.
• Per-vantage-point tables, full parameter grids, extra target lists, and additional analyses go to the appendix with explicit forward references.
• Do not smuggle a load-bearing result into the appendix because the body is full — an argument that only closes with appendix material reads as unreviewable, and reviewers are entitled to stop at the body.

The Ethics section is not optional supplementary

Unlike ordinary appendix material, the Ethics treatment is required and must be a clearly marked section (details may spill to an appendix). Do not relegate the entire ethics argument to an optional appendix the reviewer might skip — a paper without a visible Ethics section may be rejected (imc-submission).

Double-blind supplementary rules

[No identity]   no authors, affiliations, acknowledgements, grants, testbed names, AS/probe IDs,
                or lab-domain links anywhere in the appendix or artifact
[Anonymized links] the dataset/tool link points at an anonymizing host, not a personal/lab repo
[Clean archive]  no .git history, credentials, API keys, cluster paths, or huge irrelevant captures
[Opens clean]    the archive unzips and the README orients a reader in a minute on a fresh machine
[Provenance]    vantage-point and timing metadata present but scrubbed of identity

Appendix architecture

• Order appendix sections to mirror the paper's structure (per measurement/RQ), so reviewers navigate by topic, not page number.
• Reference each appendix section from the body at least once — orphaned material is invisible under discretionary review.
• Keep the released dataset's schema documentation with the artifact, not buried in the appendix.

Vignette: splitting a multi-vantage-point study

A paper measuring a protocol from many vantage points over months: the body keeps the question, a summarized vantage-point table with the coverage-bias argument, the core method, the headline findings with confidence intervals, the limitations, and the Ethics section; the appendix holds the full per-vantage-point breakdown, the complete target lists with capture dates, and secondary analyses; the released artifact holds the time-stamped dataset, the schema, and the analysis scripts. Nothing decision-critical lives only outside the body.

Output format

[Supplement status] ready / needs fixes / not ready
[Partition check] anything decision-critical outside the body? <none / move: what>
[Ethics visibility] Ethics section present in the body? yes/no
[Page limit] body self-contained within limit? appendix not abused? yes/no
[Anonymity] appendix/artifact clean of identity + infrastructure? passed/issues
[Body dependency] <what a reviewer can decide without opening the appendix/artifact>