Oopsla review process

OOPSLA Review Process

OOPSLA reviews like a journal wearing a conference's clock. Two submission rounds per volume (2026: October 10, 2025 and March 17, 2026), a Review Committee whose chairs act as PACMPL Associate Editors (2026: Anders Møller and Işıl Dillig), multi-stage double-anonymous reviewing, an author-response window per round, and a four-way decision instead of a binary one. Round 1 of 2026 accepted 75 of 227 submissions into PACMPL Vol. 10, Issue OOPSLA1 — roughly a third, but treat any single round's rate as one data point, not a planning constant.

The four outcomes and what each really means

Outcome	Mechanics	Author's correct read
Accept	Into the round's PACMPL issue after camera-ready	Deliver commitments; start the artifact
Minor Revision	Fixable concerns resolved within the same round's process (2026 folded the old Conditional Accept in here)	A near-accept with homework and a checker
Major Revision	Invitation to resubmit to the next round against an explicit expectations list, with reviewer continuity to the extent possible	The venue wants the paper — at its price
Reject	Out of this volume's pipeline	Diagnose before re-entering the SIGPLAN family

The revision categories change meaningfully between volumes (the 2025→2026 merge is the proof), so restate the current definitions from the live track page before advising anyone.

Round-hopping: the mechanic to teach explicitly

A Major Revision is not a rejection with kind words — it is a reserved slot with named examiners. The hop works like this:

R1 submission (Oct) --Major Revision--> resubmit in R2 (Mar), same volume
R2 submission (Mar) --Major Revision--> resubmit in next volume's R1 (~Oct)
Either round --Accept/Minor Revision--> that round's issue (OOPSLA1 / OOPSLA2)

Consequences worth spelling out:

• An R1 Major Revision handled well still publishes in the same year's volume (OOPSLA2) — often faster than a fresh submission elsewhere.
• An R2 Major Revision crosses volumes, so the calendar cost is ~7 months; factor that into round choice at submission time (oopsla-workflow).
• Reviewer continuity cuts both ways: unresolved expectations are checked by the people who wrote them. Answer the list item by item in a change log; do not silently re-litigate demands you dislike — argue them explicitly or satisfy them.

Inside a round

1. Triage — format, anonymity, scope; the firm-deadline and 23-page rules bite here (oopsla-submission).
2. Multi-stage reviewing — the OOPSLA1 2026 front matter describes multiple stages of double-anonymous review; expect additional reviews or expert consultations on borderline papers between stages.
3. Author response — the four-day window where bucket arguments happen (oopsla-author-response).
4. Committee resolution — outcomes assigned; expectation lists drafted for revision buckets.
5. After acceptance — camera-ready into the PACMPL issue (oopsla-camera-ready), artifact evaluation with badges (oopsla-artifact-evaluation), talk at SPLASH.

Reading a review packet like a strategist

• Count, per review, the demands that are bounded (rerun, clarify, add baseline) versus unbounded (rethink the design, new study population). Mostly-bounded packets are Minor-Revision-shaped; argue accordingly.
• A single devastated reviewer among positive ones is a discussion problem, not a paper problem — your response should arm the positive reviewers with the citations and pointers they need to carry the argument.
• Fit complaints at OOPSLA are weaker than at narrower venues (the published scope spans formalisms to empirical studies); rebut them with precedent shapes, not indignation.

Output format

[Stage] triage / in review / response window / decision / revision pending
[Packet read] bounded vs unbounded demands per review
[Likely outcome] one of four + confidence
[Round plan] same-round path or hop target with dates from live pages
[Action] the single highest-leverage next move