--- name: wsdm-camera-ready description: Use when preparing a WSDM camera-ready after acceptance - de-anonymization order, ACM rights and TAPS production into the Digital Library proceedings, CCS concepts and keywords, page-allowance verification, artifact link restoration, and registration/presentation duties at a single-track winter conference. --- # WSDM Camera-Ready Turn an accepted WSDM paper into its archival form in the ACM Digital Library. WSDM proceedings are ACM proceedings (WSDM '26 is DOI 10.1145/3773966; each edition gets its own volume), so the mechanics run through ACM's standard production chain. Warning up front: the pack could not verify the current edition's camera-ready deadline or final page allowance - both are 待核实 items that the acceptance email and author-kit page settle, and nothing here substitutes for them. ## The order of operations that avoids rework ```text 1. Read the acceptance email twice; extract deadline, page allowance, required class options, and the rights-form sender to whitelist. 2. Complete the ACM e-rights form FIRST - it generates the exact copyright block and \setcopyright values your LaTeX must carry. 3. De-anonymize: author block, third-person self-citations back to first person where natural, acknowledgements and grants restored. 4. Restore real artifact URLs (the anonymous repo becomes the public one) and re-run every link. 5. Add/verify CCS concepts and keywords via the ACM CCS tool. 6. Rebuild with the camera-ready class options; check the allowance. 7. Submit source (TAPS-style production expects LaTeX/Word source, not just a PDF); fix validation errors early - TAPS queues clog near deadlines. 8. Register an author and confirm who presents (talk and/or poster). ``` Steps 2 before 3-6 matters: the rights confirmation dictates copyright text, DOI string, and reference format, and TAPS-produced output will be rejected or regenerated if the rights block is wrong. ## De-anonymization is an editing pass, not a toggle Removing `anonymous` from the class options is the trivial part. The real work: - Self-citations written as "Prior work [12] showed..." to hide identity often read strangely once names return; decide sentence by sentence whether to restore first person. - The rounded or role-anonymized platform descriptions (see `wsdm-submission`) can now be made precise *if* your organization's disclosure review permits it. Industry authors: start internal publication approval the day of acceptance - it is the most common cause of missed camera-ready deadlines, not LaTeX. - Acknowledge funders and colleagues; ACM's authorship policy governs who may be listed as an author, and additions after acceptance typically need chair approval - ask, never quietly add. ## Reviewer-requested changes without a rebuttal record Because WSDM historically has no rebuttal, there is no author-committed change list from a discussion phase. The reviews and the SPC meta-review are still a soft contract: implement the factual and presentational fixes they request, and keep a one-page internal log of what changed. If the meta-review conditions acceptance on specific fixes, treat those as hard requirements and make them findable (a sentence in the right section beats a silent table tweak). ## Production checklist | Item | Check | Common failure | |---|---|---| | Rights form | Completed by the listed corresponding author | Form sat in a spam folder | | Copyright block | Matches e-rights output exactly | Stale `\setcopyright` from a template | | Page allowance | Camera-ready cap per the author kit (待核实 each edition) | Assuming the submission cap carries over | | CCS + keywords | Generated from the CCS tool, pasted as XML/commands | Hand-typed concepts that fail validation | | Metadata | Title/authors in the form == PDF exactly, including accents | Unicode mismatch breaking DL indexing | | Artifact links | Public repo resolvable, tagged release, license file | Link still pointing at the anonymous mirror | | Ethics section | Retained in final form | Deleted to reclaim space | | ORCID | Current ACM production requests ORCIDs for authors | One coauthor without an ORCID at deadline | ## Edge cases that eat deadlines - **Author changes.** Adding, removing, or reordering authors after acceptance needs explicit chair approval under ACM authorship norms; requests sent the week of the camera-ready deadline often cannot be processed in time. Raise them the day of acceptance. - **Title or abstract changes.** Meta-review-driven retitles are usually fine but must be mirrored in the production system's metadata, or the DL landing page and the PDF will disagree forever. - **Preprint posture.** Posting the accepted version to arXiv is common in this community, but verify the rights form's language about accepted-version posting and embargoes before uploading; the form you signed in step 2 governs, not habit. - **Figure regressions.** TAPS-style recompilation with the publisher's tool chain can shift floats and break subfigure references that looked fine locally. Recheck every `\ref` in the produced PDF, not your local build. - **Third-party content.** A screenshot of a platform UI or a licensed dataset's example rows may require permission statements at production time; the anonymized submission hid the problem, the camera-ready surfaces it. ## Money and presence - ACM's open-access arrangements (ACM Open) determine whether your institution faces an APC-like charge for open access; WSDM-specific terms and any registration-bundled publication fee are 待核实 per edition - verify on the edition's registration page before budgeting. - WSDM is small and traditionally single-track: an accepted long paper's talk is in front of essentially the whole community, and the poster session is a real hiring/collaboration floor. Decide the presenter early, check visa lead times for the host country (2027: Hong Kong, February 15-19), and confirm whether the edition requires in-person presentation - the pack found no verified remote-presentation policy for current editions. ## Two-week runbook (adjust to the real deadline) ```text Day 0-1 acceptance email parsed; e-rights kicked off; disclosure review opened (industry authors) Day 2-5 de-anonymization edit pass; meta-review fixes implemented Day 6-8 artifact goes public: real repo, license, tagged release, archival snapshot; links restored in the source Day 9-11 CCS concepts, ORCID sweep, metadata parity check Day 12 production submission; validation errors fixed same day Day 13-14 buffer for the error you did not predict ``` ## Output format ```text [Camera-ready status] on track / at risk (deadline: ) [Rights] e-rights done -> copyright block synced: yes / no [De-anonymization] author block / self-citations / acks / links: done or pending [Allowance] final page count vs verified cap: pass / over / cap unverified [Meta-review conditions] location implemented> [Presence] registrant, presenter, visa lead time, disclosure approval status ```