Wsdm camera ready

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

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)

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

[Camera-ready status] on track / at risk (deadline: <from acceptance email>)
[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] <fix -> location implemented>
[Presence] registrant, presenter, visa lead time, disclosure approval status