facct-workflow

FAccT Workflow

Use this as the project-management skill for a FAccT submission. Replace every date with the current

official Important Dates page and work backwards from the abstract-registration deadline, which

precedes the paper deadline and is a hard gate: miss it and OpenReview will not accept your PDF.

FAccT runs a single annual research deadline, and — new for the 2026 edition — a genuine

Revise-and-resubmit round sits inside the review cycle, so plan for a possible revision, not just

an accept/reject.

FAccT is a conference with no standing editor-in-chief; leadership is the per-edition General

Chairs and Program Chair (FAccT 2026: General Chairs Su Lin Blodgett and Zeerak Talat, PC Chair

Michael Madaio, verified 2026-07-09). Chairs rotate yearly; re-check the committees page rather than

carrying a name forward. Since 1 January 2026 all ACM proceedings are Open Access, so budget for

the ACM Open / APC question early rather than at camera-ready.

Milestones (FAccT 2026 calendar as the worked example)

• Venue fit: confirm FAccT over a pure-ML/HCI/law venue and confirm the contribution is

fairness/accountability/transparency-first (facct-topic-selection).

• Abstract registration: submit real title, abstract, authors, and focus areas by the

abstract deadline (FAccT 2026: 8 January 2026). This gate cannot be reopened.

• Paper submission: upload the anonymized acmart PDF with its endmatter statements

(FAccT 2026: 13 January 2026).

• Preliminary reviews + rebuttal: reviews released (FAccT 2026: 20 February 2026); a short

rebuttal window for factual corrections, not debate.

• First notification: Accept / Revise / Reject (FAccT 2026: 2 March 2026).
• Revision (if issued): address Area-Chair-prioritized concerns and resubmit by the revision

deadline (FAccT 2026: 25 March 2026); re-reviewed before a final decision.

• Camera-ready: Round-1 accepts (FAccT 2026: 24 April 2026); Revise-and-resubmit accepts

(FAccT 2026: 11 May 2026).

• Present: every accepted paper — archival or non-archival — is presented at the conference

(FAccT 2026: Montréal, June 25-28, 2026).

Backward plan from the paper deadline

| Weeks out (heuristic) | Interdisciplinary-responsible-AI milestone |

|---|---|

| 10+ | Research/critical question fixed; affected populations and disciplinary lane named |

| 8 | Data collected / interviews done / legal-doctrinal analysis drafted; provenance and consent logged |

| 6 | Analysis complete; disaggregated results or qualitative codes done; limitations drafted alongside |

| 4 | Full draft in the acmart template; endmatter statements drafted (ethics, adverse impacts) |

| 3 | Internal mock review by a reader outside your discipline (the mixed-reviewer stress test) |

| 2 | Harm/limitations hardened; related-work delta across disciplines sharpened; page budget met |

| 1 | Anonymity sweep (strip positionality/acks); Generative AI Usage Statement written; focus areas set |

| 0 | Abstract registered by its earlier gate, then paper + endmatter on OpenReview |

These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current Important Dates page,

never to a previous cycle.

The single-deadline calendar reality

FAccT runs one annual research deadline. As of 2026-07-09 the FAccT 2026 edition has just

concluded in Montréal, so the live next target is FAccT 2027 (dates/venue 待核实). Two planning

consequences:

• Missing the annual deadline costs roughly a year at FAccT; if the work is time-sensitive, a

sibling venue (AIES, a fairness-focused ML workshop, or a CHI/CSCW deadline) or the CRAFT track

may have a nearer date — factor that into routing rather than idling.

• A Revise decision keeps you inside the same cycle (revision deadline weeks after

notification), not a year later — but this revise-and-resubmit round is new for 2026, so

confirm it still exists and re-read its exact timing before relying on it.

Failure modes by stage

• Missing the abstract-registration gate — the single most common fatal error; without a

registered abstract and focus areas there is no paper slot at all.

• Leaving endmatter statements to the final night — a rushed Ethical Considerations or Adverse

Impacts statement reads as an afterthought to reviewers who take reflexivity seriously.

• Skipping the cross-discipline mock review — forfeits the one chance to hear "a lawyer/social

scientist will not accept this framing" from a friend instead of a reviewer.

• Treating a Revise as a guaranteed accept — the re-review is real; budget the short revision

window like a deadline.

• Positionality/acknowledgement leak — placing an identity-revealing statement in the anonymous

submission is an anonymity violation, not a virtue.

Coordination notes

• Assign one owner for the endmatter statements (ethics, adverse impacts, Generative AI Usage)

and another for the anonymity sweep; shared ownership is how both slip.

• Archive the exact submitted PDF and, later, the rebuttal and revision response — the re-review

quotes them and the response must map each reviewer concern to a change.

Output format

[Current stage] idea / evidence / writing / registration / submitted / rebuttal / revise / accepted
[Next official deadline] <date and source, or unknown>
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness>
[Risk register] <abstract gate / anonymity / endmatter statements / evidence / revision window / presentation>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>