Skill UI

This guide clarifies what constitutes an 'artifact' for pure-theory venues like ITCS. It emphasizes that the core deliverable is not code or functional components, but the mathematical argument itself. Successful evaluation relies on providing complete, self-contained proofs within the submitted PDF, along with citing dependencies precisely. It details how to handle minor computational content to ensure static, verifiable checks.

This comprehensive guide addresses the unique challenges of submitting research to top-tier conferences that do not include formal author-response or major revision rounds. It teaches authors a proactive strategy: how to pre-empt potential reviewer objections (e.g., novelty, scope limitations) by embedding necessary arguments, proofs, and context directly into the initial submission. Furthermore, it provides actionable plans for navigating both acceptance (camera-ready fixes) and rejection (diagnosis and strategic rerouting) without relying on traditional appeal processes.

This comprehensive guide details the rigorous process of transforming a submitted ITCS paper into the final, open-access LIPIcs camera-ready version. It covers critical steps including switching to the required `lipics-v2021` LaTeX class, fully re-attributing author identity (names, ORCIDs, funding), completing structured metadata (ACM CCS, keywords), incorporating reviewer-suggested fixes, and ensuring compliance with strict production standards set by the Dagstuhl editorial office.

A guide for authors submitting to theoretical computer science venues (ITCS). It strictly defines what constitutes valid evidence for a mathematical claim, emphasizing that complete proofs are paramount. The guidelines detail how to use worked examples, separating objects, and appropriately scoped computations, while strongly advising against using empirical benchmarks or performance metrics.

A comprehensive guide for authors positioning theoretical computing research in top-tier venues like ITCS. It emphasizes defining the 'delta'—the genuinely new contribution—by leading comparisons with what prior work *did not* ask. The guide also covers best practices for multi-area surveying, maintaining academic honesty, and correctly handling self-citations under double-blind review conditions.

This guide outlines the standards for making pure theoretical claims independently verifiable. It demands complete, self-contained proofs for all central lemmas, explicit definitions for every symbol, and precise citation for all borrowed results. It ensures that the submitted paper, the full preprint version, and the mathematical arguments are perfectly consistent, addressing the highest level of academic rigor in theoretical computer science.

This guide models the specific, high-stakes review pipeline of the ITCS conference. It emphasizes that submissions are judged as-is, with no opportunity for rebuttal or revision. The focus is on conceptual novelty and making the paper completely self-contained. Use this to calibrate your expectations and preemptively address potential reviewer objections in your initial draft.

A comprehensive guide for authors preparing submissions for the ITCS conference. It details the required format, the two-step submission deadlines (abstract vs. full paper), and critical steps for ensuring the manuscript is fully self-defending, correctly anonymized, and meets the standards for a lightweight, double-blind review process.

This guide details the crucial rules for structuring a scientific paper submitted to conferences like ITCS. It dictates how content—including main theorems, proofs, and motivation—must be distributed across three locations: the main body, the submitted appendix, and the external full version (arXiv). The core principle ensures that all decision-critical evidence for accepting the paper resides within the submitted PDF, preventing reviewers from relying on external or unread preprints.

This guide helps researchers navigate the complex landscape of theoretical computer science conferences. It explains the crucial distinction between 'conceptual novelty' (favored by ITCS) and 'deep technical results' (favored by STOC/FOCS). Use this to determine if your research contribution is a new idea, model, or connection, or if it is the deepest, most polished theorem on an established problem.

A comprehensive guide detailing the entire academic life cycle for submitting to ITCS. It outlines the critical single annual cycle—from abstract submission in early September through review, notification, and final conference presentation in January. Learn how to plan backward from the deadline, especially focusing on strategies for the no-rebuttal format, ensuring your paper preemptively answers reviewer objections.

This guide provides specific structural advice for writing top-tier academic papers, particularly for ITCS. It emphasizes that the paper must lead with the novel question or conceptual model, rather than deep technical theorems. Learn how to frame the innovation, identify the gap in current research, and clearly define the conceptual payoff to maximize impact on reviewers.