pods-workflow

PODS Workflow

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

official timetable and work backwards from the abstract deadline, which precedes the full-paper

deadline by about a week in each cycle. PODS runs multiple submission cycles per year and every

paper may hit a revision round with a shepherd, so plan for a two-round-per-cycle process, not a

single accept/reject.

PODS is a symposium whose papers are journal articles in the PACMMOD PODS track: it has **no

standing editor-in-chief** and no APC in the systems sense. Rotating leadership is the per-edition

PODS PC Chair (PODS 2026: Ke Yi, HKUST, verified 2026-07-09) appointed with ACM SIGMOD and SIGACT;

the cost model is registration and at least one author presents. Chairs rotate yearly — re-check the

organization page rather than carrying a name forward.

Choosing a cycle

PODS's multi-cycle calendar is a planning lever, not just a constraint. As of 2026-07-09, PODS 2026

(Bengaluru) has already met, so the live target is PODS 2027 (Huntington Beach): Cycle 1 closed

30 May 2026, and Cycle 2 (abstract+COI 10 Oct 2026, paper 17 Oct 2026) is the next live deadline.

• Submit when the proof is complete, not when the cycle is nearest. A rushed, gap-filled proof

draws a reject that burns the cycle; PODS's next cycle is only a season away, so the cost of waiting

one cycle is far smaller than at a once-a-year venue.

• A reject cannot be immediately re-submitted. Recent SIGMOD/PODS policy bars resubmitting

rejected research-track work for roughly a year of cycles — so a premature submission can cost more

than one cycle. Verify the exact wording before relying on the next cycle as a safety net.

Milestones

• Venue fit: confirm PODS over SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE and over ICDT (pods-topic-selection).
• Result lock: fix the model, the theorem statements, and complete every proof; the appendix is

incorporated at submission, so proofs cannot be deferred to a later "full version."

• Abstract + COI: register the real title, abstract, authors, and declared conflicts of interest

by the earlier abstract deadline of the chosen cycle.

• Submission: upload the anonymized acmsmall PDF (body + references + appendix) on EasyChair by

the full-paper deadline.

• Rebuttal: use the ~48-hour window to correct factual misreadings only.
• Decision: accept / reject / revision (minor or major).
• Revision (if invited): implement the revision items within the given window; a shepherd judges

whether the revision is satisfactory.

• Acceptance: prepare the PACMMOD camera-ready, post the full version on arXiv, register, and

present at PODS.

Backward plan from the paper deadline

| Weeks out (heuristic) | Theory-paper milestone |

|---|---|

| 10+ | Model and problem fixed; main theorem statements conjectured |

| 8 | Core proofs complete; lower-bound/upper-bound gap closed or scoped honestly |

| 6 | Full draft in acmsmall; every stated theorem has a complete proof in body or appendix |

| 4 | Appendix assembled and incorporated; anonymity sweep on paper and appendix |

| 3 | Internal read by a theory colleague who checks a proof end to end |

| 2 | Tighten definitions, related-work delta, page budget (15 pp excl. refs) |

| 1 | Final proof-read of the hardest proof; COI list prepared |

| 0 | Abstract by its earlier cutoff, then paper + appendix on EasyChair |

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

never to a previous cycle's calendar.

Failure modes by stage

• A proof still open at week 6 forces a "sketch in the appendix" that the reviewers will not

accept — the classic PODS reject in the making. Close the gap or scope the claim.

• Leaving the appendix to the final week produces incomplete proofs and identity leaks under

double-anonymity (a named system, an acknowledgement).

• Skipping the colleague read forfeits the one chance to hear "your Lemma 4 is circular" from a

friend instead of a reviewer.

• Treating a revision as automatic and under-budgeting the revision window turns a winnable

minor revision into a reject when the shepherd is unsatisfied.

Coordination notes

• Assign one author to own the proof appendix and its anonymity, and another to own the EasyChair

fields and COI list; shared ownership is how both slip.

• Archive the exact submitted PDF and appendix — the revision round and the arXiv full version must

correspond to them precisely.

Output format

[Current stage] idea / proofs / writing / abstract-registered / submitted / revision / accepted
[Chosen cycle] cycle 1 / cycle 2, with the next official deadline (date + source, or unknown)
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness — usually a proof gap and the appendix>
[Risk register] <open proof / page budget / anonymity / revision window / arXiv full version>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>