Use this after acceptance. CAV papers are published open access as Springer LNCS chapters, so the camera-ready is a Springer production step with its own metadata and rights forms. Reopen the current LNCS author instructions, the decision email, and the artifact-track page before advising.
llncs document class, within the category page allowance and
any camera-ready extension the acceptance letter grants, with correct running heads and the
Springer copyright line.| Anonymized at submission | Restore at camera-ready | Watch for |
|---|---|---|
| Author block, affiliations, ORCID | Full, correctly ordered | Wrong author order breaks the LNCS citation and DOI metadata |
| Tool / solver / prover name | Real name throughout text, figures, artifact | A leftover anonymized name in a caption or a benchmark path |
| Acknowledgements, funding | Restored | Grant numbers required by funders |
| Self-citations (third person) | Natural first-person where it aids clarity | Over-correcting and double-citing |
| Artifact / repository link | Public archive DOI + tool homepage | The old anonymized URL surviving in a footnote |
[Template] llncs document class, current revision; correct running heads; no manual margin edits
[Metadata] title, abstract, authors+ORCID, affiliations, corresponding author, keywords entered
in the Springer system and matching the PDF
[References] complete, consistent; DOIs where available; venue strings correct (do not misattribute
a TACAS/FMCAD paper to CAV)
[Figures] vector where possible; cactus/scatter plots readable in print; captions self-contained
[Rights] Springer open-access consent-to-publish / copyright form completed for the volume
[Links] every artifact and availability link resolves from a logged-out browser
The reviews required scoping the generality claim to the supported theory and moving a lemma's full proof into the paper. Camera-ready move: narrow the claim sentence to the theory actually covered, promote the lemma proof from the appendix into the correctness section (space permitting) or keep it clearly in the appendix with a body pointer, restore the real tool name in the benchmark tables, and point the availability statement at the now-public DOI archive — without expanding the claim the PC accepted.
The camera-ready and the AEC evaluation are separate deadlines, and the badge outcome may arrive after the camera-ready is due. Do not block the paper on the badge; but make the paper's availability statement consistent with the badges you are pursuing (Available at minimum; Functional/Reusable if granted), and add any badge acknowledgement only per the current LNCS/AEC instructions.
[Camera-ready status] ready / needs fixes / blocked
[De-anonymization] author block / tool name / acks / links restored (if applicable)? yes/no
[LNCS metadata] ORCID / author order / affiliations / keywords / rights form complete? yes/no
[Reviewer-change map] <required change -> final edit, no scope creep>
[Open science] anonymized links replaced by DOI archive? availability statement updated? yes/no
[Remaining owner] <person -> task>