Email Gateway (Jun 24 2025 at 01:54): Email Gateway (Jun 24 2025 at 01:54):From: Ningning Xie <xnningxie@gmail.com>
PACMPL Issue POPL 2026 seeks contributions on all aspects of programming
languages and programming systems, both theoretical and practical. Authors
of
papers published in PACMPL Issue POPL 2026 will be invited to present their
work
in the POPL conference in January 2026, which is sponsored by ACM SIGPLAN,
in
cooperation with ACM SIGACT and ACM SIGLOG.
POPL 2026 Website: https://popl26.sigplan.org/
Call for Papers:
https://conf.researchr.org/track/POPL-2026/POPL-2026-popl-research-papers
Submission deadline: July 10 2025 AOE
Double-Blind Review FAQ:
https://conf.researchr.org/track/POPL-2026/POPL-2026-popl-research-papers#double-blind-reviewing
Conference Location: Rennes, France
Conference Dates: January 11-17, 2026
General Chair: Sandrine Blazy, University of Rennes
Program Chair: Suresh Jagannathan, Purdue University
Program Committee:
https://popl26.sigplan.org/committee/POPL-2026-popl-research-papers-program-committee
Principles of Programming Languages (POPL) is a forum for the discussion of
all
aspects of programming languages and programming systems. Both theoretical
and
experimental papers are welcome, on topics ranging from formal frameworks to
experience reports. We seek submissions that make principled, enduring
contributions to the theory, design, understanding, implementation, or
application of programming languages.
The Review Committee will evaluate the technical contribution of each
submission
as well as its accessibility to both experts and the general POPL audience.
All
papers will be judged on significance, originality, relevance, correctness,
and
clarity. Each paper must explain its scientific contribution in both
general and
technical terms, identifying what has been accomplished, explaining why it
is
significant, and comparing it with previous work. Advice on writing
technical
papers can be found on the SIGPLAN author information page:
https://www.sigplan.org/Resources/Author/.
Deadlines and formatting requirements, detailed below, will be strictly
enforced.
POPL 2026 will use a full double-blind reviewing process (similar to the one
used in recent years (POPL 2023 - 2025) but different from the lightweight
double-blind process used before then). This means that identities of
authors
will not be made visible to reviewers until after conditional-acceptance
decisions have been made, and then only for the conditionally-accepted
papers.
The use of full double-blind reviewing has several consequences for authors.
Submissions: Authors must omit their names and institutions from their
paper submissions. In addition, references to authors’ own prior work
should
be in the third person (e.g., not “We build on our previous work …” but
rather
“We build on the work of …”).
Supplementary material: Authors are permitted to provide supplementary
material (e.g., detailed proofs, proof scripts, system implementations, or
experimental data) along with their submission, which reviewers may (but
are
not required to) examine. This material may take the form of a single
file,
such as a PDF or a tarball. Authors must fully anonymize any supplementary
material.
Author response: In responding to reviews, authors should not say
anything
that reveals their identity, since author identities will not be revealed
to
reviewers at that stage of the reviewing process.
Dissemination of work under submission: Authors are welcome to
disseminate
their ideas and post draft versions of their paper(s) on their personal
website, institutional repository, or arXiv (reviewers will be asked to
turn
off arXiv notifications during the review period). But authors should not
take
steps that would almost certainly reveal their identities to members of
the
Program Committee, e.g., directly contacting PC members or publicizing the
work on widely-visible social media or major mailing lists used by the
community.
The purpose of the above restrictions is to help the Program Committee and
external reviewers come to a judgment about the paper without bias, not to
make
it impossible for them to discover the authors’ identities if they were to
try.
In particular, nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens
the
quality of the submission.
However, there are occasionally cases where adhering to the above
restrictions
is truly difficult or impossible for one reason or another. In such cases,
the
authors should contact the Program Chair to discuss the situation and how to
handle it.
The FAQ on Double-Blind Reviewing addresses many common scenarios and
answers
many common questions about this topic. But there remain many grey areas and
trade-offs. If you have any doubts about how to interpret the double-blind
rules
or you encounter a complex case that is not clearly covered by the FAQ,
please
contact the Program Chair for guidance.
POPL 2026 will have five Associate Chairs who will help the PC Chair monitor
reviews, solicit external expert reviews for submissions when there is not
enough expertise on the committee, and facilitate reviewer discussions.
As in previous years, authors will have a multi-day period to respond to
reviews, as indicated in the Important Dates table. Responses are optional.
A
response must be concise, addressing specific points raised in the reviews;
in
particular, it must not introduce new technical results. Reviewers will
write a
short reaction to these author responses.
The Review Committee (RC) will discuss papers electronically, and will use
synchronous virtual meetings to discuss any papers for which there is
disagreement among reviewers, in some cases soliciting additional input from
other experts in the committee. There is no formal External Review
Committee,
though experts outside the committee may be consulted for some papers.
Reviews
will be accompanied by a short summary of the reasons behind the committee’s
decision with the goal of clarifying the reasons behind the decision.
To conform with ACM requirements for journal publication, all POPL papers
will
be conditionally accepted; authors will be required to submit a short
description of the changes made to the final version of the paper,
including how
the changes address any requirements imposed by the Review Committee. That
the
changes are sufficient will be confirmed by the original reviewers prior to
acceptance to POPL. Authors of conditionally accepted papers must submit a
satisfactory revision to the Review Committee by the requested deadline or
risk
rejection.
For additional information about the reviewing process, see: Principles of
POPL, a presentation
of
the underlying organizational and reviewing policies for POPL. For POPL
2026,
policies specified in this Call for Papers supersede those in the
Principles of
POPL document.
The submission site is https://popl26.hotcrp.com.
Authors can submit multiple times prior to the deadline. Only the last
submission will be reviewed. There is no abstract deadline. The submission
site
requires entering author names and affiliations, relevant topics, and
potential
conflicts. Addition or removal of authors after the submission deadline will
need to be approved by the Program Chair (as this kind of change potentially
undermines the goal of eliminating conflicts during paper assignment).
The submission deadline is 11:59PM July 10, 2025 anywhere on earth (AOE):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anywhere_on_Earth
For each submission, the authors must make sure that they properly declare
all
potential conflicts of interest for all of the authors of that submission.
This
includes marking PC conflicts as well as “Other Conflicts (external)”. A
conflict caught late in the reviewing process leads to a voided review
which may
be infeasible to replace.
Conflicts should be declared between an adviser and an advisee (e.g., Ph.D.,
post-doc; forever), between an author and a co-author (papers and
proposals; for
two years), between people at the same institution (branches of large
companies
or different locations of research institutes are considered to be the same
institution; for two years after leaving an institution), between people
with
financial conflicts of interest, and between friends or relatives.
If a possible reviewer does not meet the above criteria, please do not
identify
him/her as conflicted. Doing so could be viewed as an attempt to prevent a
qualified, but possibly skeptical reviewer from reviewing your paper. If you
nevertheless believe that a reviewer who does not meet the above criteria is
conflicted, or if you are unsure about a possible conflict, you may
identify the
person and send a note to the PC Chair. Declaring a spurious conflict with
the
aim of excluding otherwise qualified reviewers can be grounds for desk
rejection.
Prior to the paper submission deadline, authors should upload their full
anonymized paper. Here are some key requirements concerning paper
submissions:
acmart LaTeXacmsmall option). It is a single-column page layout with aLast updated: Jul 02 2025 at 08:30 UTC