oopsla-review-process

OOPSLA Review Process

OOPSLA reviews like a journal wearing a conference's clock. Two submission

rounds per volume (2026: October 10, 2025 and March 17, 2026), a Review

Committee whose chairs act as PACMPL Associate Editors (2026: Anders Møller

and Işıl Dillig), multi-stage double-anonymous reviewing, an author-response

window per round, and a four-way decision instead of a binary one. Round 1 of

2026 accepted 75 of 227 submissions into PACMPL Vol. 10, Issue OOPSLA1 —

roughly a third, but treat any single round's rate as one data point, not a

planning constant.

The four outcomes and what each really means

| Outcome | Mechanics | Author's correct read |

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

| Accept | Into the round's PACMPL issue after camera-ready | Deliver commitments; start the artifact |

| Minor Revision | Fixable concerns resolved within the same round's process (2026 folded the old Conditional Accept in here) | A near-accept with homework and a checker |

| Major Revision | Invitation to resubmit to the next round against an explicit expectations list, with reviewer continuity to the extent possible | The venue wants the paper — at its price |

| Reject | Out of this volume's pipeline | Diagnose before re-entering the SIGPLAN family |

The revision categories change meaningfully between volumes (the 2025→2026

merge is the proof), so restate the current definitions from the live track

page before advising anyone.

Round-hopping: the mechanic to teach explicitly

A Major Revision is not a rejection with kind words — it is a reserved slot

with named examiners. The hop works like this:

R1 submission (Oct) --Major Revision--> resubmit in R2 (Mar), same volume
R2 submission (Mar) --Major Revision--> resubmit in next volume's R1 (~Oct)
Either round --Accept/Minor Revision--> that round's issue (OOPSLA1 / OOPSLA2)

Consequences worth spelling out:

• An R1 Major Revision handled well still publishes *in the same year's

volume* (OOPSLA2) — often faster than a fresh submission elsewhere.

• An R2 Major Revision crosses volumes, so the calendar cost is ~7 months;

factor that into round choice at submission time (oopsla-workflow).

• Reviewer continuity cuts both ways: unresolved expectations are checked by

the people who wrote them. Answer the list item by item in a change log;

do not silently re-litigate demands you dislike — argue them explicitly or

satisfy them.

Inside a round

1. Triage — format, anonymity, scope; the firm-deadline and 23-page rules

bite here (oopsla-submission).

1. Multi-stage reviewing — the OOPSLA1 2026 front matter describes

multiple stages of double-anonymous review; expect additional reviews or

expert consultations on borderline papers between stages.

1. Author response — the four-day window where bucket arguments happen

(oopsla-author-response).

1. Committee resolution — outcomes assigned; expectation lists drafted

for revision buckets.

1. After acceptance — camera-ready into the PACMPL issue

(oopsla-camera-ready), artifact evaluation with badges

(oopsla-artifact-evaluation), talk at SPLASH.

Reading a review packet like a strategist

• Count, per review, the demands that are bounded (rerun, clarify, add

baseline) versus unbounded (rethink the design, new study population).

Mostly-bounded packets are Minor-Revision-shaped; argue accordingly.

• A single devastated reviewer among positive ones is a discussion problem,

not a paper problem — your response should arm the positive reviewers with

the citations and pointers they need to carry the argument.

• Fit complaints at OOPSLA are weaker than at narrower venues (the published

scope spans formalisms to empirical studies); rebut them with precedent

shapes, not indignation.

Output format

[Stage] triage / in review / response window / decision / revision pending
[Packet read] bounded vs unbounded demands per review
[Likely outcome] one of four + confidence
[Round plan] same-round path or hop target with dates from live pages
[Action] the single highest-leverage next move