Call For Paper
Last Update : [2 September, 2023]
CCS has 2 Review Cycles
For each submission,
one of the following decisions will be made:
Papers in this category will be accepted for publication in the proceedings and presentation at the conference, possibly after making minor changes with the oversight of a shepherd.
Papers in this category are considered to be promising but need some minor additional work (e.g., minor experiments, proofs to minor lemmas). Authors will be given the opportunity to resubmit such papers, with appropriate revisions, in which case they should clearly explain in a well-marked appendix how the revisions address the comments of the reviewers. The revised paper will then be re-evaluated, and either accepted or rejected.
Papers in this category are declined for inclusion in the conference. Papers rejected from the first review cycle may not be submitted again (even in revised form) to the second review cycle.
Providing Artifacts at Submission Time
Submissions whose claimed contributions rely on artifacts (e.g., code, models, data sets) are expected to make these accessible to the reviewers, unless there are good reasons not to, in which case these reasons must be mentioned in the submission.
Submissions whose claimed contributions do not rely on artifacts do not need to submit artifacts.
Conflicts of Interest
The conference requires cooperation from both authors and program-committee members to ensure a fair review process. For this purpose, authors must report all program-committee members who, in their opinion, have a conflict of interest and therefore may not be able to provide an unbiased review.
Mandatory declared conflicts of interest include current or former doctoral advisor/advisee, members of the same institution, close family members, and recent co-authors (within the past 2 years). For any other declared conflict, authors are required to explain the nature of the conflict, which will be reviewed by the Conference Co-Chairs and the Track Chairs. The chairs reserve the right to request further explanation and can remove non-mandatory conflicts at their discretion.
Track Chairs are allowed to submit papers, and those papers will be handled by the Conference Co-Chairs. They are only allowed to submit two papers in their own track, and any number in other tracks.
Program-committee members who have a genuine conflict of interest with a paper, including the Conference Co-Chairs and the Track Chairs, will be excluded from evaluation and discussion of that paper. When a Track Chair has a conflict, the paper will be handled by the Conference Co-Chairs. When a Conference Co-Chair is conflicted, the other Co-Chair will be responsible for managing that paper. When both Conference Co-Chairs are in conflict, a committee member will be appointed to handle the paper. Conference Co-Chairs are not allowed to be authors or co-authors of any submissions.
Policy for Peer-Review Integrity
All SIGSAC sponsored conferences and workshops are required to follow ACM policies against harassment activities and ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Also all authors, PC members and non-PC reviewers are required to follow ACM Publications Policies.
Particularly, we require all reviewers to uphold the integrity of the peer review process and avoid conflict of interest of any form (e.g., reviewer collusion ring). Those who violate these policies will be penalized according to ACM policies. If you would like to report a violation, please contact program chairs of your conferences/workshops or SIGSAC officers. We are committed to protecting the confidentiality of your communication.
Diversity and Inclusion
ACM CCS is committed to promoting diversity and inclusion in our community. If you have suggestions, concerns, or complaints related to biases or sexual harassment, we encourage you to reach out to the Conference Co-Chairs. We are committed to protecting the anonymity of such reports and helping to address your concerns. We value your feedback and ideas to help us all build a healthier and more welcoming community.
We encourage the authors to be mindful of not using language or examples that further the marginalization, stereotyping, or erasure of any group of people, especially historically marginalized and/or under-represented groups (URGs) in computing. Of course, exclusionary treatment can arise unintentionally. Be vigilant and actively guard against such issues in your writing. Reviewers will also be empowered to monitor and demand changes if such issues arise in your submissions. Please check the link for more information.