I have come across author instructions for conferences that differentiate between full papers/short papers/poster papers by length only. Sometimes shorter paper types seem to undergo less scrutiny. Let's say I have made a significant finding that can be well expressed in 1 or 2 pages (shouldn't we all aim for being brief?), how would I decide what track to submit to? Why wouldn't I choose the poster/short paper track? Is there a difference in reputation between a short paper and a full paper? How would a reader be able to tell (other than by page count)? I've sometimes seen papers prefixed as "Short Paper: ...", but is this the norm in Computer Science? How do IEEE/ACM handle this?

  • You should also check if all the versions have formal proceedings. Those that don't are meant for works-in-progress and will have a significantly lower "reputation".
    – GoodDeeds
    Jul 26, 2021 at 0:46
  • Also, I don't understand how the tracks can differ on length only. Is there a minimum length requirement for full papers then?
    – GoodDeeds
    Jul 26, 2021 at 0:48

1 Answer 1


Note that some "posters" are for work in progress, not completed works. I met a lot of students in ACM poster sessions who were "not quite done."

I would suggest submitting as a short paper if you have a significant result. The program committee might ask you to move it to a poster, however. But, for the initial submission, probably short paper is better.

Reputation likely isn't affected by the distinction between long and short papers, since some significant things can be expressed compactly. I don't think that would be the same for a poster, though not all conferences are equivalent.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .