edbt-review-process

EDBT Review Process

Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. EDBT's process is a **multiple-cycle

rolling model with a real in-cycle revise-and-resubmit**: within one cycle, a paper is reviewed,

gets an author-feedback exchange, receives accept / revise / reject, and — if revise — is

revised and re-read by the same reviewers before a final accept/reject. The most consequential

mental shift for authors arriving from a one-shot conference is that a revise is a genuine second

chance inside the same cycle, not a soft rejection.

Process model

• Reviewing runs in Microsoft CMT (Conference Management Toolkit). Confirm the blind policy for

the cycle — single- vs double-blind is decided per edition (待核实; EDBT has historically used

author-identified single-blind reviewing).

• Each paper is read by multiple program-committee members who weigh the significance of the

data-management contribution, technical soundness, the fairness and honesty of the evaluation

(real workloads, tuned baselines, realistic scale), reproducibility, and clarity.

• The cycle includes an author-feedback phase on the initial reviews, then a first notification

of accept / revise / reject.

• A revise becomes a revised submission plus a change letter, re-read — generally by the

original reviewers — for a second notification of accept / reject within the cycle.

• Accepted papers publish open access on OpenProceedings.org (CC-BY-NC-ND). Earlier-cycle

acceptances present at that year's conference; last-cycle acceptances roll to the next edition.

Reading a decision against the categories

| Decision | What it means | Author move |

|---|---|---|

| Accept | Contribution and evaluation hold; minor polish only | Camera-ready + artifact; do not reopen scope |

| Revise | Repairable gaps: a missing baseline, an unconvincing scale, an unclear mechanism | Treat as an in-cycle R&R: make or explicitly decline every request, evidenced |

| Reject | Structural: wrong problem framing, unfair or missing evaluation, thin contribution | Reframe or reroute (SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE/ICDT or a journal); remember the 12-month EDBT ban |

The strategic reading: write the initial submission so that whatever is weakest is **fixable inside

the in-cycle revision window** (a baseline you can add, a scale you can extend, a mechanism you can

clarify) rather than structural (an evaluation you cannot redo in the cycle). The process rewards

repairable papers.

How EDBT differs from its siblings

• vs. SIGMOD / ICDE: those publish in the paywalled ACM DL / IEEE Xplore and run their own cycle

structures; EDBT's identity is the OpenProceedings open-access record and the **three-cycle

rolling** cadence. Never assume a shared calendar or template.

• vs. VLDB / PVLDB: PVLDB is a journal-style monthly pipeline with its own revision mechanics;

EDBT's revise-and-resubmit is bounded inside a discrete cycle, not a rolling monthly journal.

• vs. ICDT (the co-located sibling): ICDT reviews theory on its own call and PC; sharing a

conference week and the OpenProceedings platform does not make them one process. An EDBT paper is

judged by DB-systems reviewers, not theory reviewers.

Who reads you

Expect several database-systems reviewers. They look for a real data-management problem, a mechanism

described precisely enough to reimplement, an evaluation on real workloads at honest scale against

tuned baselines, and a reproducible artifact. For an Experiments & Analysis paper the bar is

higher on the measurement itself: methodology, coverage, and repeatability are the contribution.

Where author leverage actually exists

[Before submission]  subject-area tags + cycle choice -> reviewer pool + timing   (largest lever)
[Author feedback]    factual corrections, targeted clarifications, misread fixes
[Revise]             the strongest lever: a revised paper + point-by-point change letter,
                     re-read by the same reviewers inside the cycle
[After reject]       no appeal; reroute to a sibling venue or journal, and mind the 12-month ban

A response moves borderline papers when it corrects a factual misreading or supplies a measurement a

reviewer said was missing; it does not move papers when it argues taste. In a revise, **silent

omissions** — a requested change neither made nor explicitly declined with a reason — are what turn

the second read into a rejection.

Reading a review packet

Weight reviews before answering. A review that cites your figures, tables, and configuration was

read closely and will be read closely again in the revision — its author is your likely advocate if

the changes hold. A review that discusses only novelty has left soundness and reproducibility to the

others; answer each reviewer on the axis they raised. Reviewers often end with an explicit request

list; the revision is scored heavily on whether each request got a direct, evidenced answer.

Misreadings to avoid

• Treating a revise as a guaranteed accept — the in-cycle second read is real; budget the

revision window like a deadline.

• Treating the author-feedback phase as the whole game — it is short and decision-focused; the

revision carries the real argument.

• Assuming the last cycle presents this year — it rolls to the next edition.
• Confusing EDBT and ICDT reviewing — separate calls, separate PCs, despite the joint week.
• Projecting last year's cadence — cycle count and per-cycle timing are decided per edition.

Output format

[Process stage] pre-submission / author-feedback / revise / final / accepted
[Cycle] which cycle, presents at <edition/year>
[Decision category] accept / revise / reject, with the criterion driving it
[Criterion map] each review point -> significance | soundness | evaluation | reproducibility | clarity
[Leverage plan] the next-stage action that can actually change the outcome
[Forbidden moves] unsupported new claims / (if double-blind) identity leak