wsdm-camera-ready

WSDM Camera-Ready

Turn an accepted WSDM paper into its archival form in the ACM Digital Library.

WSDM proceedings are ACM proceedings (WSDM '26 is DOI 10.1145/3773966; each

edition gets its own volume), so the mechanics run through ACM's standard

production chain. Warning up front: the pack could not verify the current

edition's camera-ready deadline or final page allowance - both are 待核实 items

that the acceptance email and author-kit page settle, and nothing here

substitutes for them.

The order of operations that avoids rework

1. Read the acceptance email twice; extract deadline, page allowance,
   required class options, and the rights-form sender to whitelist.
2. Complete the ACM e-rights form FIRST - it generates the exact
   copyright block and \setcopyright values your LaTeX must carry.
3. De-anonymize: author block, third-person self-citations back to
   first person where natural, acknowledgements and grants restored.
4. Restore real artifact URLs (the anonymous repo becomes the public
   one) and re-run every link.
5. Add/verify CCS concepts and keywords via the ACM CCS tool.
6. Rebuild with the camera-ready class options; check the allowance.
7. Submit source (TAPS-style production expects LaTeX/Word source,
   not just a PDF); fix validation errors early - TAPS queues clog
   near deadlines.
8. Register an author and confirm who presents (talk and/or poster).

Steps 2 before 3-6 matters: the rights confirmation dictates copyright text,

DOI string, and reference format, and TAPS-produced output will be rejected or

regenerated if the rights block is wrong.

De-anonymization is an editing pass, not a toggle

Removing anonymous from the class options is the trivial part. The real work:

• Self-citations written as "Prior work [12] showed..." to hide identity often

read strangely once names return; decide sentence by sentence whether to

restore first person.

• The rounded or role-anonymized platform descriptions (see wsdm-submission)

can now be made precise if your organization's disclosure review permits it.

Industry authors: start internal publication approval the day of acceptance -

it is the most common cause of missed camera-ready deadlines, not LaTeX.

• Acknowledge funders and colleagues; ACM's authorship policy governs who may be

listed as an author, and additions after acceptance typically need chair

approval - ask, never quietly add.

Reviewer-requested changes without a rebuttal record

Because WSDM historically has no rebuttal, there is no author-committed change

list from a discussion phase. The reviews and the SPC meta-review are still a

soft contract: implement the factual and presentational fixes they request, and

keep a one-page internal log of what changed. If the meta-review conditions

acceptance on specific fixes, treat those as hard requirements and make them

findable (a sentence in the right section beats a silent table tweak).

Production checklist

| Item | Check | Common failure |

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

| Rights form | Completed by the listed corresponding author | Form sat in a spam folder |

| Copyright block | Matches e-rights output exactly | Stale \setcopyright from a template |

| Page allowance | Camera-ready cap per the author kit (待核实 each edition) | Assuming the submission cap carries over |

| CCS + keywords | Generated from the CCS tool, pasted as XML/commands | Hand-typed concepts that fail validation |

| Metadata | Title/authors in the form == PDF exactly, including accents | Unicode mismatch breaking DL indexing |

| Artifact links | Public repo resolvable, tagged release, license file | Link still pointing at the anonymous mirror |

| Ethics section | Retained in final form | Deleted to reclaim space |

| ORCID | Current ACM production requests ORCIDs for authors | One coauthor without an ORCID at deadline |

Edge cases that eat deadlines

• Author changes. Adding, removing, or reordering authors after acceptance

needs explicit chair approval under ACM authorship norms; requests sent the

week of the camera-ready deadline often cannot be processed in time. Raise

them the day of acceptance.

• Title or abstract changes. Meta-review-driven retitles are usually fine

but must be mirrored in the production system's metadata, or the DL landing

page and the PDF will disagree forever.

• Preprint posture. Posting the accepted version to arXiv is common in

this community, but verify the rights form's language about accepted-version

posting and embargoes before uploading; the form you signed in step 2

governs, not habit.

• Figure regressions. TAPS-style recompilation with the publisher's tool

chain can shift floats and break subfigure references that looked fine

locally. Recheck every \ref in the produced PDF, not your local build.

• Third-party content. A screenshot of a platform UI or a licensed

dataset's example rows may require permission statements at production time;

the anonymized submission hid the problem, the camera-ready surfaces it.

Money and presence

• ACM's open-access arrangements (ACM Open) determine whether your institution

faces an APC-like charge for open access; WSDM-specific terms and any

registration-bundled publication fee are 待核实 per edition - verify on the

edition's registration page before budgeting.

• WSDM is small and traditionally single-track: an accepted long paper's talk is

in front of essentially the whole community, and the poster session is a real

hiring/collaboration floor. Decide the presenter early, check visa lead times

for the host country (2027: Hong Kong, February 15-19), and confirm whether

the edition requires in-person presentation - the pack found no verified

remote-presentation policy for current editions.

Two-week runbook (adjust to the real deadline)

Day 0-1   acceptance email parsed; e-rights kicked off; disclosure
          review opened (industry authors)
Day 2-5   de-anonymization edit pass; meta-review fixes implemented
Day 6-8   artifact goes public: real repo, license, tagged release,
          archival snapshot; links restored in the source
Day 9-11  CCS concepts, ORCID sweep, metadata parity check
Day 12    production submission; validation errors fixed same day
Day 13-14 buffer for the error you did not predict

Output format

[Camera-ready status] on track / at risk (deadline: <from acceptance email>)
[Rights] e-rights done -> copyright block synced: yes / no
[De-anonymization] author block / self-citations / acks / links: done or pending
[Allowance] final page count vs verified cap: pass / over / cap unverified
[Meta-review conditions] <fix -> location implemented>
[Presence] registrant, presenter, visa lead time, disclosure approval status