--- name: sigcomm-related-work description: Use when positioning an ACM SIGCOMM submission against the networking literature — sweeping SIGCOMM, NSDI, MobiCom, CoNEXT, IMC, and SIGMETRICS plus journals, proving each placement via dblp and the ACM Digital Library, distinguishing main-track papers from CCR editorials, handling concurrent work, and keeping self-citation double-blind-safe. --- # SIGCOMM Related Work Use this to audit novelty and placement. SIGCOMM is the broad networking flagship, so a paper is read against the strongest prior work in its exact subarea — and against results scattered across sibling venues. Reopen the current CFP for concurrent-submission and anonymity rules before advising. ## Positioning checks - Separate the **mechanism** you contribute from engineering polish: a new protocol, transport signal, forwarding architecture, measurement-driven design, or programmable-data-plane technique. - Sweep the whole networking literature, not just SIGCOMM: the nearest prior work may sit in NSDI, MobiCom, CoNEXT, IMC, SIGMETRICS, INFOCOM, or a journal like IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking. A bibliography that cites only SIGCOMM signals a narrow read. - **Prove each placement.** Verify the venue and year on dblp and the ACM DL before you assert it; do not rely on memory for where a famous result appeared. - Distinguish **main-track proceedings** from **CCR editorial notes** — OpenFlow's famous CCR note is not a SIGCOMM conference paper, and citing it as one is a checkable error. - Handle concurrent and prior versions honestly, and keep every self-citation phrased so double-blind review survives. ## Venue-coverage table | Literature lane | Typical venues | What SIGCOMM reviewers check | |---|---|---| | Networking design flagships | SIGCOMM, NSDI, CoNEXT | Whether the nearest deployed mechanism is compared or distinguished | | Wireless / mobile | MobiCom, SIGMOBILE venues | Whether relevant PHY/mobility work is acknowledged when adjacent | | Measurement | IMC | Whether the motivating measurement rests on the right prior characterizations | | Performance analysis | SIGMETRICS | Whether known models/bounds are credited | | Archival journals | IEEE/ACM ToN, JSAC | Whether classical results are not being rediscovered | A missing state-of-the-art comparison from the *right* venue is a recognizable SIGCOMM reject pattern that benchmark strength alone does not repair. ## The misattribution guard ```text Before citing "X appeared at SIGCOMM YYYY": 1. Find it on dblp.org/db/conf/sigcomm/ -> confirm the edition and page range 2. Confirm ACM DL lists it in the SIGCOMM conference proceedings, not CCR editorial 3. Rule out the sibling: Hedera is NSDI, RED is ToN, BBR is CACM 4. If unresolved -> mark 待核实 and do not assert the venue ``` ## Positioning vignette A paper proposes a data-center transport that schedules flows in the fabric. Its nearest neighbors: an earlier SIGCOMM congestion-signal paper (DCTCP), a fabric-scheduling paper in the same lineage (pFabric), and an NSDI flow-scheduling system that is often confused with it. The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — a different signal than the first, a different scheduling granularity than the second, and a design rather than the deployed-system framing of the NSDI neighbor — with each venue verified. ## Concurrent-work judgment calls - Independently concurrent work at another venue: cite neutrally, state the technical difference, and avoid priority claims reviewers cannot verify under blinding. - Your own prior workshop or preprint version: cite in a blind-safe third person and confirm the current CFP's stance on overlap before relying on it. - When a venue's archival status is unclear, declare the overlap in the submission rather than gambling on a chair's reading. ## Output format ```text [Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky [Closest venues] [Nearest 3 works] distinction, each venue verified> [Misattribution risk] [Novelty sentence] ```