
An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.
In this paper we present a performance analysis of our
previous paper [1], and show it to be inferior to all
previously known methods. Why the previous paper was
accepted without this analysis is beyond me.
[1] Removed for blind review
An example of an excellent paper:
An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.
In this paper we present a performance analysis of the
paper of Smith et al. [1], and show it to be inferior to all
previously known methods. Why the previous paper was
accepted without this analysis is beyond me.
[1] Smith, L and Jones, C. “The frobnicatable foo filter,
a fundamental contribution to human knowledge”.
Nature 381(12), 1-213.
If you are making a submission to another conference at
the same time, which covers similar or overlapping material,
you may need to refer to that submission in order to explain
the differences, just as you would if you had previously
published related work. In such cases, include the
anonymized parallel submission [1] as additional material
and cite it as
[1] Authors, “The frobnicatable foo filter,” ACM MM
2013 Submission ID 324, Supplied as additional material
acmmm13.pdf.
Finally, you may feel you need to tell the reader that
more details can be found elsewhere, and refer them to a
technical report. For conference submissions, the paper must
stand on its own, and not require the reviewer to go to a
technical report for further details. Thus, you may say in the
body of the paper “further details may be found in [2]”. Then
submit the technical report as additional material. Again, you
may not assume the reviewers will read this material.
Sometimes your paper is about a problem which you
tested using a tool which is widely known to be restricted to
a single institution. For example, let’s say it’s 1969, you have
solved a key problem on the Apollo lander, and you believe
that the ICME audience would like to hear about your
solution. The work is a development of your celebrated 1968
paper entitled “Zero-g frobnication: How being the only
people in the world with access to the Apollo lander source
code makes us a wow at parties”, by Zeus et al.
You can handle this paper like any other. Don’t write
“We show how to improve our previous work [Anonymous,
1968]. This time we tested the algorithm on a lunar lander
[name of lander removed for blind review]”. That would be
silly, and would immediately identify the authors. Instead
write the following:
We describe a system for zero-g frobnication. This
system is new because it handles the following cases: A,
B. Previous systems [Zeus et al. 1968] didn’t handle case
B properly. Ours handles it by including a foo term in the
bar integral.
...
The proposed system was integrated with the
Apollo lunar lander, and went all the way to the moon,
don’t you know. It displayed the following behaviours
which show how well we solved cases A and B: ...
As you can see, the above text follows standard scientific
convention, reads better than the first version, and does not
explicitly name you as the authors. A reviewer might think it
likely that the new paper was written by Zeus et al., but
cannot make any decision based on that guess. He or she
would have to be sure that no other authors could have been
contracted to solve problem B.
FAQ: Are acknowledgements OK? No. Please omit them
in the review copy and leave them for the final, camera ready
copy.
3. FORMATTING YOUR PAPER
All printed material, including text, illustrations, and charts,
must be kept within a print area of 7 inches (178 mm) wide
by 9 inches (229 mm) high. Do not write or print anything
outside the print area. The top margin must be 1 inch (25
mm), except for the title page, and the left margin must be
0.75 inch (19 mm). All text must be in a two-column format.
Columns are to be 3.39 inches (86 mm) wide, with a 0.24 inch
(6 mm) space between them. Text must be fully justified.
4. PAGE TITLE SECTION
The paper title (on the first page) should begin 1.38 inches
(35 mm) from the top edge of the page, centered, completely
capitalized, and in Times 14-point, boldface type. The
authors’ name(s) and affiliation(s) appear below the title in
capital and lower case letters. Papers with multiple authors
and affiliations may require two or more lines for this
information.
5. TYPE-STYLE AND FONTS
To achieve the best rendering both in the proceedings and
from the CD-ROM, we strongly encourage you to use Times-
Roman font. In addition, this will give the proceedings a more
uniform look. Use a font that is no smaller than nine point
type throughout the paper, including figure captions.
In nine point type font, capital letters are 2 mm high. If
you use the smallest point size, there should be no more than
3.2 lines/cm (8 lines/inch) vertically. This is a minimum
- 1
- 2
前往页