edbt-workflow

EDBT Workflow

Use this as the project-management skill for an EDBT submission. EDBT's defining rhythm is the

multiple-cycle rolling model (three cycles a year since 2022), so the first planning act is not

"hit the deadline" but "choose the cycle my evidence is ready for." Replace every date with the

current host-site timetable; the per-cycle author-feedback and revision windows are decided per

edition.

EDBT is a conference whose proceedings are open access on OpenProceedings.org (CC-BY-NC-ND, no

APC): it has no standing editor-in-chief, the rotating leadership is the per-edition General and

Program Chairs appointed with the EDBT Association, and the host site moves each year (Barcelona

2025, Tampere 2026). Re-check the current host page rather than carrying a name or URL forward.

The cycle structure (one cycle, end to end)

Each EDBT cycle runs the same five-step arc (EDBT 2022 timeline; reverify dates per edition):

[1] Submission             upload PDF + artifact to Microsoft CMT by the cycle deadline
[2] Author feedback phase  a short window to respond to initial reviews
[3] Notification #1        accept / REVISE / reject
[4] Revised submission     if REVISE: upload the revised paper + change letter
[5] Notification #2        accept / reject on the revision

The revise branch is a genuine in-cycle revise-and-resubmit re-read by the same reviewers — plan

for it, do not treat it as a formality. Papers accepted in the earlier cycles present at that year's

conference; papers accepted in the last cycle roll to the next edition.

Choosing a cycle

| Situation | Cycle choice |

|---|---|

| Evidence complete, artifact built, writing solid | The nearest cycle — do not wait a full third of a year for polish |

| One key experiment still running | The next cycle — a rushed submission burns a revise chance you could earn |

| You want to present at this specific edition | An earlier cycle of that year; the last cycle rolls forward |

| Just rejected from an EDBT track in this format | None for 12 months — the resubmission ban applies (edbt-submission) |

Milestones

• Venue fit + shape: confirm EDBT over SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE/ICDT and pick Regular / Experiments-&-

Analysis / Vision (edbt-topic-selection).

• Evidence lock: freeze workloads, datasets, baselines, measurements, and the artifact contents.
• Cycle choice: commit to a cycle and back-plan from its deadline.
• Submission: upload the PDF and artifact to Microsoft CMT.
• Author feedback: answer the initial reviews concisely in the feedback window

(edbt-author-response).

• Revise (if issued): execute the revised paper plus a point-by-point change letter within the

in-cycle window, re-read by the original reviewers.

• Decision: archive reviews, responses, and every submitted version.
• Acceptance: prepare the OpenProceedings camera-ready, finalize the artifact and its DOI

archive, register, and present at the edition your cycle feeds.

Backward plan from a cycle deadline

| Weeks out (heuristic) | Database-systems milestone |

|---|---|

| 10+ | Problem and claims fixed; workloads, datasets, and baselines chosen |

| 8 | System/prototype stable; measurement harness and provenance logging in place |

| 6 | Full evaluation run; results and scope drafted alongside them |

| 4 | Full draft in the host/OpenProceedings template; artifact assembled |

| 3 | Internal mock review by a DB-systems reader; baseline fairness challenged |

| 2 | Scope hardened, related-work delta sharpened, page budget met for the shape |

| 1 | Artifact re-run clean; availability/reproducibility statement final |

| 0 | CMT fields complete; PDF + artifact uploaded before the cycle cutoff |

These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current host-site timetable,

never to a previous cycle's calendar.

Cycle-hopping: the honest calendar reality

• A revise you cannot finish in the in-cycle window is not automatically portable to the next

cycle — the revision is scored within the cycle. Budget the revision window like a hard deadline

rather than assuming a rollover.

• Missing a cycle costs roughly a third of a year, not a whole one — EDBT's biggest scheduling

advantage over single-deadline venues. But a rejected paper still owes the 12-month

same-format resubmission ban, so a rushed reject is expensive.

• The cycle-to-conference roll is real: a last-cycle acceptance presents at the following

edition. If presenting at a specific city/year matters (travel, graduation, funding), target an

earlier cycle of that year.

Failure modes by stage

• Submitting into an early cycle with evidence still moving forfeits the revise opportunity you

could have earned with two more weeks of measurement.

• Treating the revise as a formality and under-budgeting the in-cycle window turns a winnable

revise-and-resubmit into a reject.

• Skipping the mock review forfeits the one chance to hear "your baseline is unfair" or "this

scale is unrealistic" from a friend instead of a reviewer.

• Assuming the last cycle presents this year — it rolls to the next edition; plan travel

accordingly.

Coordination notes

• Assign one owner for the artifact/reproducibility package and another for the measurement harness;

shared ownership is how provenance slips.

• Archive the exact submitted PDF and artifact — the revision round and the change letter must quote

them precisely.

Output format

[Current stage] idea / evidence / cycle-chosen / submitted / author-feedback / revise / accepted
[Target cycle] cycle N, deadline <date and source>, presents at <edition/year>
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness>
[Revise risk] <can the likely revision be finished inside the in-cycle window?>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>