# Pre-Submission Checklist for Systems Papers Comprehensive self-check before submitting to OSDI, SOSP, ASPLOS, NSDI, and EuroSys. Combines community best practices (MLNLP-World/Paper-Writing-Tips, RU-System/Paper_Writing_Tips) with systems-specific and academic integrity checks. --- ## Stage 1: Structural Completeness ### Thesis & Contributions - [ ] Paper has a clear thesis statement: "X is better for Y in Z" - [ ] Thesis appears in Abstract (sentence 3), Introduction, and Conclusion - [ ] Introduction lists 3–5 numbered, testable contributions - [ ] Each contribution cross-references a paper section (§N) - [ ] Each contribution is verified by an experiment in §5 ### Section Presence - [ ] Abstract: 150–250 words, self-contained (no undefined terms) - [ ] Introduction: Problem → Gap → Insight → Contributions - [ ] Background/Motivation: Technical terms defined before use - [ ] Design: Architecture figure + module details + alternatives - [ ] Implementation: Language, LOC, framework, key decisions - [ ] Evaluation: Setup + end-to-end + ablation + scalability - [ ] Related Work: Grouped by approach, explicit differentiation - [ ] Conclusion: 3-sentence summary (problem, solution, result) ### Page Budget - [ ] Total pages within venue limit (see venue table below) - [ ] Design section: 3–4 pages (not overlong) - [ ] Evaluation section: 3–4 pages (not underweight) - [ ] Related Work: ~1 page (not a bibliography dump) - [ ] Implementation: 0.5–1 page (concise) --- ## Stage 2: Writing Quality ### Clarity (Gernot Heiser) - [ ] No forward references without explicit pointers ("as we show in §N") - [ ] Every acronym defined on first use - [ ] No orphan terminology — every technical term defined before use - [ ] Consistent naming: system name capitalized uniformly throughout - [ ] Active voice preferred over passive where possible ### Figures & Tables (MLNLP-World/Paper-Writing-Tips) - [ ] Every figure/table referenced in text before it appears - [ ] Figure captions are self-contained (readable without text) - [ ] Evaluation figure captions include the key finding - [ ] Architecture figure appears within first 3 pages - [ ] Fonts in figures ≥ 8pt (readable when printed) - [ ] Colors distinguishable in grayscale (for B&W printing) - [ ] Consistent plot styles across all evaluation figures ### LaTeX Quality - [ ] All code blocks have language tags (```python, ```bash, etc.) - [ ] Non-breaking spaces before references: `Section~\ref{...}` - [ ] Consistent citation format: `\cite{...}` not mixed with `[N]` - [ ] No overfull hbox warnings in LaTeX log - [ ] Bibliography entries have complete metadata (authors, title, venue, year) ### Prose Quality (RU-System/Paper_Writing_Tips) - [ ] No hedging without evidence ("we believe", "it seems") - [ ] Quantitative claims have numbers ("significantly better" → "37% better") - [ ] No first-person unless venue style requires it - [ ] Contributions are specific, not vague ("novel" without explanation) - [ ] Related work comparisons are fair and accurate --- ## Stage 3: Evaluation Rigor ### Experimental Methodology - [ ] Baselines are state-of-the-art (not straw men) - [ ] Baselines configured optimally (not default/untuned) - [ ] Hardware, software versions, and configurations fully specified - [ ] Workloads described in sufficient detail to reproduce - [ ] Statistical significance: error bars, multiple runs, or confidence intervals - [ ] Warmup runs excluded from measurements ### Result Presentation - [ ] Every conclusion stated 3 times: hypothesis (§ opening), result (§ closing), caption (figure) - [ ] Ablation study isolates each design component - [ ] Scalability experiments show behavior at increasing scale - [ ] Both favorable and unfavorable results discussed honestly - [ ] Performance numbers are absolute (not only relative percentages) ### Reproducibility - [ ] Source code availability stated (or planned) - [ ] Key hyperparameters and configuration values listed - [ ] Workload generation described or traces cited - [ ] Enough detail for an independent team to reproduce within ~2 weeks --- ## Stage 4: Design Quality ### Alternatives Discussion (Irene Zhang) - [ ] Every major design decision discusses at least one alternative - [ ] Alternatives are genuinely considered (not straw men) - [ ] Trade-offs for each alternative explicitly stated - [ ] Reasons for rejection are technical (not "it was harder to implement") ### Correctness Arguments - [ ] System handles failure cases (discussed or evaluated) - [ ] Edge cases acknowledged (even if not fully solved) - [ ] Threat model or assumptions section present (if applicable) - [ ] Limitations stated honestly (not hidden) --- ## Stage 5: Academic Integrity ### Citation Discipline - [ ] **Every citation verified programmatically** (Semantic Scholar / DBLP / CrossRef) - [ ] No citations generated from memory or LLM output - [ ] Unverified citations marked as `[CITATION NEEDED]` - [ ] All BibTeX entries have: authors, title, venue, year, pages/DOI - [ ] No fabricated paper titles, authors, or venues - [ ] Self-citations are relevant (not padding) ### Data Integrity - [ ] Production observations are from real data (not fabricated) - [ ] Experimental results are from actual runs (not interpolated/extrapolated) - [ ] Traces cited with source (public dataset or anonymized description) - [ ] No results cherry-picked without disclosing selection criteria ### LLM Disclosure - [ ] Check venue's AI/LLM use policy in current CFP - [ ] If LLM used for substantial writing: disclose as required - [ ] If LLM used for code generation: disclose as required - [ ] Confirm all LLM-assisted content reviewed by human authors ### Originality - [ ] No paragraph-level text copied from other papers - [ ] Structural patterns inspired by other papers are attributed - [ ] Cross-repository content (if any) is attributed, not copied - [ ] Related work descriptions are original paraphrases, not copy-paste --- ## Stage 6: Venue-Specific Requirements > **Verify against the current year's CFP** — rules change annually. ### All Systems Venues - [ ] **System design and implementation** — not just algorithms - [ ] **Real workloads and evaluation** — microbenchmarks are insufficient - [ ] **Practical benefits demonstrated** — latency, throughput, cost, energy - [ ] **Comparison with state-of-the-art systems** - [ ] **No simultaneous submission to other venues** - [ ] **Prior arXiv/tech reports permitted** ### Page Limits Quick Reference | Conference | Main Content | Camera-Ready | References | Format | |------------|-------------|--------------|------------|--------| | OSDI 2026 | 12 pages | 14 pages | Unlimited | USENIX | | NSDI 2027 | 12 pages | varies | Unlimited | USENIX | | ASPLOS 2027 | 12 pages | varies | Unlimited | ACM SIGPLAN | | SOSP 2026 | 12 pages | varies | Unlimited | ACM SIGPLAN | | EuroSys | 12 pages | varies | Unlimited | ACM | ### OSDI 2026 OSDI focuses on innovative research and quantified/insightful experiences in systems design and implementation. **Tracks:** - **Research Track**: Novel systems research - **Operational Systems Track** (New in 2026): Design, implementation, analysis, and experience of operational systems **Checklist:** - [ ] ≤12 pages (excluding references) - [ ] 8.5" x 11" pages, 10pt on 12pt leading, two-column, Times Roman - [ ] 7" wide x 9" deep text block - [ ] Pages are numbered - [ ] Figures and tables legible in black and white - [ ] Paper is the right length (not padded; <6pp unlikely to receive full consideration) - [ ] Double-blind: no author names, affiliations - [ ] Anonymized project/system name (different from arXiv/talks) - [ ] Track indicated on title page and submission form - [ ] Operational Systems papers: title ends with "(Operational Systems)" - [ ] Max 8 submissions per author - [ ] Work NOT wholly or largely generated by AI (AI editing tools are acceptable) ### NSDI 2027 NSDI focuses on design principles, implementation, and practical evaluation of networked and distributed systems. **Tracks:** - **Traditional Research Track**: Novel ideas with thorough evaluations - **Frontiers Track** (New): Bold ideas without necessarily complete evaluation - **Operational Systems Track**: Deployed systems with lessons learned **Prescreening:** Reviewers read only the Introduction to check: - [ ] Subject falls within NSDI scope - [ ] Exposition understandable by NSDI PC member - [ ] Track-specific criteria articulated in Introduction **Checklist:** - [ ] ≤12 pages (excluding references), USENIX format - [ ] Two-column, 10pt, Times Roman - [ ] Double-blind anonymized - [ ] Contributions to networked systems design - [ ] NOT out-of-scope topics (hardware architecture, physical layer, sensing, UI) - [ ] Track indicated on title page and submission form - [ ] Not rejected from previous NSDI deadline without one-shot revision option ### ASPLOS 2027 ASPLOS focuses on the intersection of computer architecture, programming languages, and operating systems. **Rapid Review Round** (unique to ASPLOS): - Reviewers only read the **first 2 pages** - Evaluates how work advances Architecture/PL/OS research - Majority of submissions may not advance past this stage **Checklist:** - [ ] First 2 pages self-contained: clearly states problem, approach, and contribution - [ ] Advances Architecture, PL, and/or OS research - [ ] Not just advances in another domain using arch/PL/OS - [ ] ACM SIGPLAN format (`\documentclass[sigplan,10pt]{acmart}`) - [ ] ≤12 pages (excluding references) - [ ] Double-blind anonymized - [ ] Max 4 submissions per author per cycle - [ ] Resubmission note describing changes (if applicable) - [ ] Not resubmitted from immediate previous ASPLOS cycle ### SOSP 2026 SOSP seeks innovative research related to design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, and deployment of computer systems software. **Checklist:** - [ ] ACM SIGPLAN format (`\documentclass[sigplan,10pt]{acmart}`) - [ ] ≤12 pages technical content (excluding references) - [ ] A4 or US letter, 178×229mm (7×9") text block - [ ] Two-column, 8mm separation, 10pt on 12pt leading - [ ] Pages numbered, references hyperlinked - [ ] Figures/tables readable without magnification, encouraged in color but grayscale-readable - [ ] Double-blind: paper ID instead of author names - [ ] Anonymized system/project name - [ ] Own work cited in third person - [ ] No acknowledgments or grant numbers - [ ] Artifact evaluation materials prepared (optional but recommended) - [ ] Author response ≤500 words, no new experiments ### EuroSys - [ ] ACM template used - [ ] Page limit: 12 pages - [ ] Double-blind formatting - [ ] Artifact evaluation encouraged --- ## Stage 7: Final Pass ### Before Clicking Submit - [ ] PDF renders correctly (no missing fonts, broken figures) - [ ] All TODO/FIXME comments removed from source - [ ] `[CITATION NEEDED]` markers resolved or removed - [ ] Author names correct (camera-ready) or removed (blind) - [ ] Acknowledgements removed for blind submission - [ ] Supplementary material properly anonymized - [ ] File size within submission system limits - [ ] Paper title matches submission system entry - [ ] Abstract in submission system matches paper abstract - [ ] Correct track/topic area selected in submission system ### One-Sentence Self-Test (Levin & Redell Six Dimensions) For each dimension, answer in one sentence: 1. **Original Ideas**: What is genuinely new? 2. **Reality**: Is the system built and tested? 3. **Lessons**: What did we learn that others can use? 4. **Choices**: Did we discuss alternatives for every major decision? 5. **Context**: Is the related work fair and complete? 6. **Presentation**: Would a non-expert in this subfield understand the paper? If any answer is weak, revise that aspect before submitting.