OOPSLA Submission

OOPSLA accepts new papers into either of two yearly rounds feeding the PACMPL OOPSLA volume; for the 2026 volume the rounds closed October 10, 2025 and March 17, 2026, both 11:59:59 PM AoE and explicitly firm, via oopsla26.hotcrp.com. Before running this audit, confirm which round is actually open on the current SPLASH track page — as of 2026-07-08 both 2026 rounds had closed and the 2027 Round 1 call was not yet posted (待核实).

The three questions that precede any checklist

1. Which round? A round is a strategic choice, not just a date. Filing in the earlier round leaves the later round of the same volume available for a Major-Revision resubmission; filing in the later round pushes any Major Revision into next year's volume. See oopsla-workflow for the calendar math.
2. New paper or invited revision? A Major-Revision invitation must come back as a revision in the designated round, answering the reviewers' expectation list — never re-filed as a fresh submission. Mixing these up forfeits reviewer continuity.
3. Is the evidence finished? The two-round model gives reviewers a revision lever; an evaluation you plan to "complete during review" invites exactly that lever to be pulled against you.

Format contract (2026 volume)

Anonymity sweep beyond the obvious

• Tool and prototype names that are already public: rename or cite in the third person, and scrub GitHub organization strings from listings.
• The Data-Availability Statement itself must stay anonymous — point to an anonymized archive, not a lab server whose hostname names your group.
• PDF metadata (pdfinfo shows author fields LaTeX quietly embeds), embedded figure paths, and acknowledgment stubs left from a prior journal draft.
• Self-citation grammar: "we extended X [12]" de-anonymizes; "this work builds on X [12]" does not.

Concurrent-submission and prior-work posture

Declare any overlapping manuscript honestly. The dangerous case at OOPSLA is the sibling-venue loop: a rejected PLDI or POPL version resubmitted with the same evaluation weaknesses — reviewer pools overlap, and the two-round model means the same people may see the paper twice within one year. Fix what the last venue's reviews established before re-entering the family.

Filing-day sequence

T-3 days   Freeze claims; regenerate all numbers from the artifact
T-2 days   Anonymity sweep (text, metadata, statement, supplement)
T-1 day    HotCRP record: title/abstract match PDF, topics, conflicts,
           all authors listed with institutions in the form only
T-0        Upload PDF + supplement; re-download and open both;
           confirm timestamp shows AoE margin, not local-time optimism

Deadlines being firm means the plan needs no heroics on the final night; if the paper is not assembled at T-3, target the next round instead — with two rounds a year, the cost of waiting is months, not a year.

Output format

[Round] <target round + deadline, from the live track page>
[Filing type] new submission / invited revision
[Format] pass / fail per contract row above
[Anonymity] clean / leaks found: <list>
[Statement] Data-Availability Statement present and anonymous: yes/no
[Verdict] file now / fix list / wait for next round