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 '21 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 '21 at 0:48

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.

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.