Paraphrasing the 'Call for Papers' for the popular networks conference INFOCOM, submissions on a wide range of research topics, spanning both theoretical and systems research are invited. INFOCOM also has a hard 8 page limit on submissions including appendices etc.

For papers on the theoretical side / relying on proofs, the 8 page limit is far too short a span to submit self-contained papers. Is there a general protocol for submitting longer theory papers to such conferences which do not explicitly mention anything about an extended-paper being submittable alongside.


A common approach is to submit an extended version of the paper to arXiv containing all the additional material needed (e.g., full proofs), referencing the arXiv paper from the submitted conference paper for further details as necessary.

If that does not sound like a good idea, it might suggest that the paper is better submitted to another venue, or perhaps directly to a journal.

Edit: Just looking now specifically at INFOCOM requirements, peer review is double-blind, which means publishing on arXiv becomes more complicated (obviously you cannot reference an extended paper where the authors are given). What may perhaps work is to informally publish an extended version of the paper online (in a "neutral" location of course, not giving away the identity/affiliation of the author(s)) and reference that in the submitted version, then if the paper is accepted, consider publishing the arXiV version with author names and reference that from the camera ready version. Admittedly this gets more complex, where you should probably contact the PC chairs of the specific conference to see what it the norm in such cases.

Searching further in the case of INFOCOM:

  • Papers with the same title and abstract should not be posted on a public website, such as arxiv.org, or transmitted via public mailing lists.
  • We allow the use of an anonymous Microsoft OneDrive link for the reviewers to download an extended version of the submitted manuscript with details of mathematical proofs. Needless to say, the extended version of the submitted manuscript will need to be anonymized, following the guidelines above. It is the responsibility of the authors to make the OneDrive link (and its content) anonymous, with respect to both the owner of the link and people who visit the link. The reviewers, however, are not obliged to read the extended manuscript when evaluating a submitted paper.
  • Actually, I worry that the "short" version of such a paper would be subject to easy rejection for lack of completeness. That no matter about the longer version. If the limit is fixed the referees/reviewers aren't going to like needing to go to a long version to evaluate. I think your second suggestion makes more sense. – Buffy Jul 28 '18 at 19:52
  • Sometimes this is explicitly forbidden (e.g. NIPS) when the conference has double blind reviewing, as it would reveal the author identities. – Thomas Jul 28 '18 at 19:52
  • 1
    @Buffy, I think this is a common procedure for theoretical conferences (submit a short version referencing a long version with full details). I'm certain that reviewers would take this into account (often review forms ask what material the reviewer actually considered, i.e., did they look at the extended version as well). – badroit Jul 28 '18 at 19:57
  • 1
    I'll guess that if you have a long paper, don't submit it to a venue requiring short papers. Somewhere along the line you will lose. I understand your desire to submit to a top conference, but this might not work well for you in this case. "Think of the referees." :) – Buffy Jul 28 '18 at 20:00
  • 1
    I also assume you've considered and rejected the possibility of submitting a subset of the work that is significant and complete. Not always possible, I realize. – Buffy Jul 28 '18 at 20:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.