imc-writing-style

IMC Writing Style

Use this while drafting the body. IMC reviewers are measurement experts who read for **what you

learned about the real Internet and whether the data support it**. The organizing principle is

that the paper is a measurement contribution: the finding leads, the vantage points and method

are auditable, and the limitations and ethics are visible from the start — not appended.

The first-page arc

Put the measurement finding on the first page, in this shape:

1. A question about the real Internet a practitioner or researcher recognizes ("how reachable

/ how deployed / how secure / how does X behave in the wild?").

1. Why current knowledge is inadequate — prior work measured too few vantage points, a single

snapshot, a testbed instead of deployment, or a biased input.

1. The measurement and its vantage points — what you measured, from where, over what period.
2. What the data show — the headline finding, stated as a measured result with uncertainty.
3. What it means — for operators, protocol designers, or the community, plus what you release.

Do not lead with a system you built or a tool's speed. If the first page is a systems win, the

paper reads as a re-routed NSDI/SIGCOMM submission (imc-topic-selection).

Make vantage points and method auditable

A measurement claim is only as good as the reader's ability to judge the measurement:

• Name the vantage points: locations, ASes, probe types, and how many. Summarize in the body,

detail in the appendix.

• Argue representativeness explicitly: why these vantage points support the claim, and where

they do not. Quantify coverage bias rather than hoping no one asks.

• Date everything: measurement windows, cadence, and target-list capture dates. The Internet

moves; undated results are unfalsifiable.

• Show the method, not just the tool name: enough that a reader could re-measure and judge

soundness.

Longitudinal and confound awareness

• Distinguish a snapshot from a trend. If you claim behavior over time, show the window and

its stability; if you have a snapshot, scope the claim to it.

• Name confounds a moving Internet introduces — diurnal patterns, churn, load-balancing, CDN

effects, measurement-vantage bias — and instrument to bound them.

Limitations that argue, not recite

A good IMC limitations discussion is an argument about validity, engaged where the results live:

• For each headline result, state the threat to its validity (coverage, ground truth, temporal,

measurement bias) and how you bounded it.

• Prefer "we observed X from these vantage points; it may not hold for networks unlike them, which

we quantify in §Y" over a generic "our study has limitations."

• Do not quarantine all caveats into one closing paragraph.

Write the Ethics section early

The Ethics section is a required gate, not a closing courtesy (imc-submission). Drafting it

early forces you to design safe active measurement, obtain IRB determinations, and plan disclosure

before collecting data — none of which can be retrofitted. Reference it from the introduction so

the reviewer sees the posture immediately.

Page-budget discipline (acmart)

IMC's acmart budget (IMC 2025: up to 13 pages full / 6 pages short of text+figures, plus an

unlimited appendix) is generous but finite for the body. Recover space by cutting redundancy,

not by exiling decision-critical evidence to the appendix (imc-supplementary). Every figure earns

its space by supporting a claim; a vantage-point map that clarifies coverage is worth more than a

decorative architecture diagram.

Common prose failures at IMC

| Failure | Why it hurts | Fix |

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

| System/tool leads the first page | Reads as a systems re-route | Lead with the measurement finding |

| Vantage points unnamed or unjustified | Reader cannot judge validity | Name them; argue representativeness |

| Undated, single-snapshot claims | Unfalsifiable on a moving Internet | Date everything; scope or extend temporally |

| Limitations recited generically | No validity argument | Tie each threat to a result and bound it |

| Ethics as an afterthought | Fails the gate | Write and reference it early |

Output format

[First-page arc] question -> inadequacy -> measurement/vantage points -> finding -> meaning? present/gaps
[Vantage points] named, dated, representativeness argued? yes/no
[Temporal framing] snapshot vs. trend stated correctly? yes/no
[Limitations] argued per-result and bounded? yes/no
[Ethics] section drafted early and referenced up front? yes/no
[Body edits] <ordered list to strengthen the measurement narrative>