The Web Conference runs one research-tracks cycle per year, anchored in early autumn, with the conference the following spring or summer. The 2026 edition adds two planning lessons no other pack in this collection teaches as vividly: the same edition offered later submission windows into the same proceedings (short papers, Web4Good), and the conference itself moved by ten weeks mid-cycle (April 13-17 → June 29 - July 3, 2026), so travel and money plans need slack.
| Milestone | 2026 edition date | Offset from abstract |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract (research/industry) | Sep 30, 2025 | 0 |
| Full paper | Oct 7, 2025 | +1 week |
| Short papers abstract / paper | Nov 10 / Nov 17, 2025 | +6 / +7 weeks |
| Web4Good abstract / paper | Nov 23 / Nov 30, 2025 | +8 / +9 weeks |
| Rebuttal window | Nov 24 - Dec 1, 2025 | +8 weeks |
| Notification | Jan 13, 2026 | +15 weeks |
| Camera-ready | Jan 25, 2026 | +17 weeks |
| Author registration (post-postponement) | Mar 30, 2026 | +26 weeks |
| Conference | Jun 29 - Jul 3, 2026 | +39 weeks |
Every date above is a 2026 anchor for shape, not a prediction: pull the current edition's important-dates page before committing the team.
T-12w Claim set frozen; datasets acquired; ethics/ToS posture settled
(data-access negotiations are the long pole for web papers)
T-8w Experiment matrix running (webconf-experiments); baselines reproduced
T-6w First full draft; web-native framing test (webconf-writing-style)
T-4w Internal review by someone from the track's *other* discipline
T-2w Freeze authors + track; sweep co-author EasyChair profiles;
count per-author submissions against the cap of 7
T-1w Page-zone audit, anonymity sweep (webconf-submission)
T+0 Abstract registered -- author list now immutable
T+1w Paper in, with hours of margin (deadlines are strict, AoE)
Two locks distinguish this venue's timeline: the author-list freeze at T+0 and the track choice, both irreversible a week before the paper itself is due.
A miss or a weak draft at the research deadline is not a lost year here:
Each fallback has different proceedings placement and prestige; choose by what the paper needs (archival main-proceedings status vs. fast feedback), not by sunk cost.
webconf-camera-ready).Groups submitting several papers per cycle hit constraints individuals never see. The 7-per-author cap binds on senior authors first: an advisor on nine drafts must drop off two before abstracts are registered, which is an authorship-integrity decision, not a bookkeeping one — being removed to dodge the cap while continuing to contribute violates the spirit of both the cap and the authorship policy. Rebuttal week is the second portfolio bottleneck: five papers times a one-week window means five simultaneous response drafts; assign one owning author per paper in September and let the PI review rather than write. Track collisions are the third: two similar papers from one group in one track invite the panel to compare them against each other — differentiate their framings deliberately or route one to a different track or venue.
Route by the review packet's agreement structure (webconf-review-process): a
converged evidence objection means running the missing experiments and returning
next edition; a fit objection means the sibling circuit — WSDM (autumn deadline,
web mining methods), CIKM (spring, broad IR/KM), SIGIR (winter, retrieval), KDD
(winter/summer dual-cycle, mining) — inherits the paper with modest reframing.
Never resubmit unchanged into an overlapping reviewer pool; panels remember.
Three shape changes the series has actually made, which a multi-year plan should treat as live possibilities rather than history:
[Cycle position] T<±n>w relative to current-edition abstract deadline
[Locks ahead] author freeze / track choice / cap count -- dates
[Fallback decision] research full / short / Web4Good / workshop / next edition
[Capacity flags] rebuttal-week owner, camera-ready pre-work, travel slack
[Next actions] <this week's moves, with owning author>