Pods workflow

PODS Workflow

Use this as the project-management skill for a PODS submission. Replace every date with the current official timetable and work backwards from the abstract deadline, which precedes the full-paper deadline by about a week in each cycle. PODS runs multiple submission cycles per year and every paper may hit a revision round with a shepherd, so plan for a two-round-per-cycle process, not a single accept/reject.

PODS is a symposium whose papers are journal articles in the PACMMOD PODS track: it has no standing editor-in-chief and no APC in the systems sense. Rotating leadership is the per-edition PODS PC Chair (PODS 2026: Ke Yi, HKUST, verified 2026-07-09) appointed with ACM SIGMOD and SIGACT; the cost model is registration and at least one author presents. Chairs rotate yearly — re-check the organization page rather than carrying a name forward.

Choosing a cycle

PODS's multi-cycle calendar is a planning lever, not just a constraint. As of 2026-07-09, PODS 2026 (Bengaluru) has already met, so the live target is PODS 2027 (Huntington Beach): Cycle 1 closed 30 May 2026, and Cycle 2 (abstract+COI 10 Oct 2026, paper 17 Oct 2026) is the next live deadline.

• Submit when the proof is complete, not when the cycle is nearest. A rushed, gap-filled proof draws a reject that burns the cycle; PODS's next cycle is only a season away, so the cost of waiting one cycle is far smaller than at a once-a-year venue.
• A reject cannot be immediately re-submitted. Recent SIGMOD/PODS policy bars resubmitting rejected research-track work for roughly a year of cycles — so a premature submission can cost more than one cycle. Verify the exact wording before relying on the next cycle as a safety net.

Milestones

• Venue fit: confirm PODS over SIGMOD/VLDB/ICDE and over ICDT (pods-topic-selection).
• Result lock: fix the model, the theorem statements, and complete every proof; the appendix is incorporated at submission, so proofs cannot be deferred to a later "full version."
• Abstract + COI: register the real title, abstract, authors, and declared conflicts of interest by the earlier abstract deadline of the chosen cycle.
• Submission: upload the anonymized acmsmall PDF (body + references + appendix) on EasyChair by the full-paper deadline.
• Rebuttal: use the ~48-hour window to correct factual misreadings only.
• Decision: accept / reject / revision (minor or major).
• Revision (if invited): implement the revision items within the given window; a shepherd judges whether the revision is satisfactory.
• Acceptance: prepare the PACMMOD camera-ready, post the full version on arXiv, register, and present at PODS.

Backward plan from the paper deadline

Weeks out (heuristic)	Theory-paper milestone
10+	Model and problem fixed; main theorem statements conjectured
8	Core proofs complete; lower-bound/upper-bound gap closed or scoped honestly
6	Full draft in acmsmall; every stated theorem has a complete proof in body or appendix
4	Appendix assembled and incorporated; anonymity sweep on paper and appendix
3	Internal read by a theory colleague who checks a proof end to end
2	Tighten definitions, related-work delta, page budget (15 pp excl. refs)
1	Final proof-read of the hardest proof; COI list prepared
0	Abstract by its earlier cutoff, then paper + appendix on EasyChair

These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current Important Dates page, never to a previous cycle's calendar.

Failure modes by stage

• A proof still open at week 6 forces a "sketch in the appendix" that the reviewers will not accept — the classic PODS reject in the making. Close the gap or scope the claim.
• Leaving the appendix to the final week produces incomplete proofs and identity leaks under double-anonymity (a named system, an acknowledgement).
• Skipping the colleague read forfeits the one chance to hear "your Lemma 4 is circular" from a friend instead of a reviewer.
• Treating a revision as automatic and under-budgeting the revision window turns a winnable minor revision into a reject when the shepherd is unsatisfied.

Coordination notes

• Assign one author to own the proof appendix and its anonymity, and another to own the EasyChair fields and COI list; shared ownership is how both slip.
• Archive the exact submitted PDF and appendix — the revision round and the arXiv full version must correspond to them precisely.

Output format

[Current stage] idea / proofs / writing / abstract-registered / submitted / revision / accepted
[Chosen cycle] cycle 1 / cycle 2, with the next official deadline (date + source, or unknown)
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness — usually a proof gap and the appendix>
[Risk register] <open proof / page budget / anonymity / revision window / arXiv full version>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>