Submissions on a wide range of topics are sought, particularly ones that identify new research directions. CAV 2016 is not limited to topics discussed in previous instances of the conference. Authors concerned about the appropriateness of a topic may communicate by electronic mail with the conference chairs prior to submission.
As explained below, CAV 2016 will follow a lightweight double-blind review process. Submissions that are not “blinded” will be rejected without review.
Submissions will be in two categories: Regular Papers and Tool Papers.
- Regular Papers should not exceed 15 pages in LNCS format, not counting references and appendices. Authors can include clearly marked appendices at the end of their submissions, that are exempt from the page limit restrictions. However, the reviewers are not obliged to read the contents of these appendices. These papers should contain original research and sufficient detail to assess the merits and relevance of the contribution. Papers will be evaluated on basis of a combination of correctness, technical depth, significance, novelty, clarity, and elegance. We welcome papers on theory, case studies and comparisons with existing experimental research, as well as combinations of new theory with experimental evaluation. A strong theoretical paper is not required to have an experimental component. On the other hand, strong papers reproducing and comparing existing results experimentally do not require new theoretical insights.
- Tool Papers should not exceed 6 pages, not counting references. These papers should describe system and implementation aspects of a tool with a large (potential) user base (experiments not required, rehash of theory strongly discouraged). Papers describing tools that have already been presented (in any conference) will be accepted only if significant and clear enhancements to the tool are reported and implemented.
Unlike last year, there is no separate Short Paper category.
Prior to the registration deadline, the authors will register their paper by uploading information on the submission title, abstract (of at most 300 words), authors, topics, and conflicts to the conference web site. Papers that are not registered on time will be rejected.
We encourage authors to provide any supplementary material that is required to support the claims made in the paper, such as detailed proofs or experimental data. These materials should be uploaded at submission time, as a single pdf or a tarball, not via a URL. It will be made available to reviewers only after they have submitted their
first-draft reviews and hence need not be anonymized. Reviewers are under no obligation to look at the supplementary material but may refer to it if they have questions about the material in the body of the paper.
Simultaneous submission to other conferences with proceedings or submission of material that has already been published elsewhere is not allowed.
The review process will include a feedback/rebuttal period where authors will have the option to respond to reviewer comments. The PC chairs may solicit further reviews after the rebuttal period.
Papers must be submitted in PDF format here.
Lightweight Double-Blind Reviewing Process
CAV 2016 will employ a lightweight double-blind reviewing process. This means that committee members will not have access to authors’ names or affiliations as they review a paper; however, authors’ names will be revealed once reviews have been submitted and online discussion has begun.
To facilitate this, submitted papers must adhere to two rules:
- author names and institutions must be omitted, and
- references to authors’ own related work should be in the third person (e.g., not “We build on our previous work …” but rather “We build on the work of …”).
The purpose of this process is to help the PC and external reviewers come to an initial judgement about the paper without bias, not to make it impossible for them to discover the authors if they were to try. Nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens the submission or makes the job of reviewing the paper more difficult (e.g., important background references should not be omitted or anonymized). In addition, authors should feel free to disseminate their ideas or draft versions of their paper as they normally would. For instance, authors may post drafts of their papers on the web or give talks on their research ideas. A document answering frequently asked questions about the double-blind review process will be made available on the conference website.
A document answering frequently asked questions about submissions and double-blind review process can be found here.