--- name: edbt-workflow description: Use when planning an EDBT project timeline across the multiple-cycle rolling model — choosing a submission cycle, backward-planning through the author-feedback phase and the in-cycle revise-and-resubmit window, and handling the cycle-to-conference roll — for a database-systems paper published open access on OpenProceedings. --- # EDBT Workflow Use this as the project-management skill for an EDBT submission. EDBT's defining rhythm is the **multiple-cycle rolling model** (three cycles a year since 2022), so the first planning act is not "hit the deadline" but **"choose the cycle my evidence is ready for."** Replace every date with the current host-site timetable; the per-cycle author-feedback and revision windows are decided per edition. EDBT is a conference whose proceedings are **open access on OpenProceedings.org** (CC-BY-NC-ND, no APC): it has **no standing editor-in-chief**, the rotating leadership is the per-edition General and Program Chairs appointed with the EDBT Association, and the host site moves each year (Barcelona 2025, Tampere 2026). Re-check the current host page rather than carrying a name or URL forward. ## The cycle structure (one cycle, end to end) Each EDBT cycle runs the same five-step arc (EDBT 2022 timeline; reverify dates per edition): ```text [1] Submission upload PDF + artifact to Microsoft CMT by the cycle deadline [2] Author feedback phase a short window to respond to initial reviews [3] Notification #1 accept / REVISE / reject [4] Revised submission if REVISE: upload the revised paper + change letter [5] Notification #2 accept / reject on the revision ``` The **revise** branch is a genuine in-cycle revise-and-resubmit re-read by the same reviewers — plan for it, do not treat it as a formality. Papers accepted in the earlier cycles present at that year's conference; papers accepted in the **last** cycle roll to the **next** edition. ## Choosing a cycle | Situation | Cycle choice | |---|---| | Evidence complete, artifact built, writing solid | The nearest cycle — do not wait a full third of a year for polish | | One key experiment still running | The next cycle — a rushed submission burns a revise chance you could earn | | You want to present at this specific edition | An earlier cycle of that year; the last cycle rolls forward | | Just rejected from an EDBT track in this format | None for 12 months — the resubmission ban applies (`edbt-submission`) | ## Milestones - **Venue fit + shape:** confirm EDBT over SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE/ICDT and pick Regular / Experiments-&- Analysis / Vision (`edbt-topic-selection`). - **Evidence lock:** freeze workloads, datasets, baselines, measurements, and the artifact contents. - **Cycle choice:** commit to a cycle and back-plan from its deadline. - **Submission:** upload the PDF and artifact to Microsoft CMT. - **Author feedback:** answer the initial reviews concisely in the feedback window (`edbt-author-response`). - **Revise (if issued):** execute the revised paper plus a point-by-point change letter within the in-cycle window, re-read by the original reviewers. - **Decision:** archive reviews, responses, and every submitted version. - **Acceptance:** prepare the OpenProceedings camera-ready, finalize the artifact and its DOI archive, register, and present at the edition your cycle feeds. ## Backward plan from a cycle deadline | Weeks out (heuristic) | Database-systems milestone | |---|---| | 10+ | Problem and claims fixed; workloads, datasets, and baselines chosen | | 8 | System/prototype stable; measurement harness and provenance logging in place | | 6 | Full evaluation run; results and scope drafted alongside them | | 4 | Full draft in the host/OpenProceedings template; artifact assembled | | 3 | Internal mock review by a DB-systems reader; baseline fairness challenged | | 2 | Scope hardened, related-work delta sharpened, page budget met for the shape | | 1 | Artifact re-run clean; availability/reproducibility statement final | | 0 | CMT fields complete; PDF + artifact uploaded before the cycle cutoff | These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current host-site timetable, never to a previous cycle's calendar. ## Cycle-hopping: the honest calendar reality - **A revise you cannot finish in the in-cycle window** is not automatically portable to the next cycle — the revision is scored *within* the cycle. Budget the revision window like a hard deadline rather than assuming a rollover. - **Missing a cycle costs roughly a third of a year, not a whole one** — EDBT's biggest scheduling advantage over single-deadline venues. But a rejected paper still owes the 12-month same-format resubmission ban, so a rushed reject is expensive. - **The cycle-to-conference roll is real:** a last-cycle acceptance presents at the *following* edition. If presenting at a specific city/year matters (travel, graduation, funding), target an earlier cycle of that year. ## Failure modes by stage - **Submitting into an early cycle with evidence still moving** forfeits the revise opportunity you could have earned with two more weeks of measurement. - **Treating the revise as a formality** and under-budgeting the in-cycle window turns a winnable revise-and-resubmit into a reject. - **Skipping the mock review** forfeits the one chance to hear "your baseline is unfair" or "this scale is unrealistic" from a friend instead of a reviewer. - **Assuming the last cycle presents this year** — it rolls to the next edition; plan travel accordingly. ## Coordination notes - Assign one owner for the artifact/reproducibility package and another for the measurement harness; shared ownership is how provenance slips. - Archive the exact submitted PDF and artifact — the revision round and the change letter must quote them precisely. ## Output format ```text [Current stage] idea / evidence / cycle-chosen / submitted / author-feedback / revise / accepted [Target cycle] cycle N, deadline , presents at [Critical path] [Revise risk] [Owner map] person or role> ```