Conext writing style

CoNEXT Writing Style

Write to the CoNEXT reader: a networking systems/measurement expert who wants the networking contribution and the evaluation platform on the first page, evidence proportional to the claim and drawn from the real target, and a limitations posture visible from the start. Because CoNEXT papers are PACMNET journal articles judged in a two-round, one-shot-revision process, the draft must read like a manuscript whose claims are already backed, not a promising sketch.

The first-page arc

Lead with the arc the worked example demonstrates (../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md):

1. The networking problem, in a real deployment context — a problem an operator, protocol designer, or systems builder recognizes, stated in the first breath.
2. Why the current state is inadequate — what existing systems/measurements miss, and why the gap matters on real paths or hardware.
3. The contribution, as networking claims — a mechanism, a measured phenomenon, or both, not a model or a score.
4. Evidence on the real target — a testbed run, a deployment, or a trace, each claim paired with the measurement that backs it.
5. What changes for networking + limitations posture — the payoff for practice, with the central threat named up front rather than deferred.

Claims tied to measurements

• State the claim as an outcome an operator or protocol cares about ("completion time for throttled short flows drops"), not as an offline metric ("accuracy is high").
• Pair each claim with its evidence and its platform: which testbed, which trace, which vantage points, which baseline. A claim with no matching measurement is the fastest path to a one-shot-revision change-list item.
• Report uncertainty. Confidence intervals, multiple runs, and effect sizes read as rigor; a single bar with no variance reads as a lab artifact to a measurement reviewer.

Limitations as argument, not boilerplate

CoNEXT reviewers reward a paper that names its own central threat and bounds it. Put the limitation where the result lives, not only in a closing section:

• If a measurement infers an outcome from a proxy signal, say so and bound it with a ground-truth subset.
• If evaluation is on one testbed or one network, scope the generalization claim explicitly.
• If a mechanism assumes hardware behavior, state what breaks if the assumption fails.

A limitations section that only lists generic caveats ("results may not generalize") wastes the one place you can pre-empt the reviewer's strongest objection.

Page-budget discipline (acmart)

• Long papers ≤16 pages text+figures (+ unlimited references + ≤4 appendix pages); short papers ≤10 pages (+ unlimited references + ≤2 appendix pages). Verify the current numbers.
• References are unlimited, so never sacrifice a citation for space; compress prose, figures, and redundant tables instead.
• The appendix budget is small and for supporting, not deciding, material — nothing a reviewer needs to accept the paper should live only there (see conext-supplementary).
• Do not alter the acmart template to reclaim space; editorial compression is the only safe lever.

Networking-prose specifics

• Define the topology and scale early. A reader should know what network, what hardware, and what scale before the evaluation.
• Name the baselines honestly and describe how they were tuned; an untuned strawman is a soundness flag.
• Figures earn their space. A topology diagram, a CDF, or a time series that a reviewer can read in one glance is worth more than a paragraph; a decorative architecture box is not.
• Anonymize as you write — refer to your own system and prior work in the third person, and do not name testbeds, operators, or repositories (double-anonymous review).

Common CoNEXT-specific failure modes

Failure	Why it hurts at CoNEXT	Fix
Simulation stands in for the real platform	Platform-realism is a core CoNEXT expectation	Add a testbed/deployment run, or scope the claim
Claim outruns the measurement	The two-round review catches it	Pair each claim with evidence, or soften the claim
Limitations deferred to one closing paragraph	Misses the chance to pre-empt objections	Argue the central threat where the result lives
Model/leaderboard framing	Reads as an ML paper wearing a networking title	Reframe around the networking lesson (topic-selection)
Over-signposted roadmap	Substitutes structure for argument	One-line roadmap; let the contributions carry it

Output format

[First-page arc] problem -> inadequacy -> contribution -> real-target evidence -> what changes + limitations
[Claim-evidence pairs] <claim -> measurement + platform + baseline>
[Limitations posture] <central threat named where the result lives? yes/no>
[Budget] pages used (body/appendix), acmart compliant? refs unlimited
[Anonymity] third-person self-reference; no testbed/operator/repo names