Just exactly just How (and exactly how perhaps perhaps Not) to create A systems that is good Paper

Just exactly just How (and exactly how perhaps perhaps Not) to create A systems that is good Paper

An assessment of this Ninth SOSP Submissions -or- How (and exactly how maybe maybe Not) to Write good systems Paper

Roy Levin and David D. Redell, Ninth SOSP Program Committee Co-chairmen


On March 21, 1983, this system committee when it comes to 9th Symposium on running System Principles, having read the eighty-three documents submitted, chosen sixteen for presentation in the symposium. This acceptance ratio of approximately one in five approximates those of previous SOSPs, even though the true wide range of submissions had been notably less than in the past few years. A few people in this system committee discovered it interestingly an easy task to split the papers that are good the bad people; indeed, the ten committee users quickly decided on the disposition of over 80% associated with the papers. Because the acceptance ratio suggests, a lot of these had been rejections.

Following the committee had finished its selectio n process, a few users indicated disappointment within the quality that is overall of submissions. A number of the refused papers exhibited comparable weaknesses, weaknesses that the committee felt needs to have been obvious towards the writers. Into the hope of increasing the standard of future SOSP submissions, and systems documents generally speaking, the committee chose to explain the requirements found in assessing the documents it received. This short article combines the requirements utilized by every one of the people of the committee, not merely the writers.

To attempt to avoid sounding preachy or pedagogic, we've cast this presentation in the 1st and 2nd individual and adopted a light, sporadically funny design. However, the intent is severe: to indicate the problems that are common look over and over repeatedly in technical documents in a fashion that can certainly make it easier for future writers in order to avoid them. Read more