[Haskell-cafe] ICFP 2024: Call for Papers

ICFP Publicity icfp.publicity at googlemail.com
Thu Nov 30 10:58:33 UTC 2023

             PACMPL Volume 7, Issue ICFP 2024

                           Call for Papers

       Accepted papers to be invited for presentation at

The 29th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming

                              Milan, Italy

### Important dates

(All dates are in 2023 at 11.59pm Anywhere on Earth.)

Paper Submission -- Wed 28 Feb 2024  (AOE)
Paper Author Response -- Mon 29 Apr 12:00 - Wed 1 May 12:00 2024
Paper Notification --Mon 20 May 2024


* Full double blind reviewing

### Scope

PACMPL issue ICFP 2024 seeks original papers on the art and science of
functional programming. Submissions are invited on all topics from
principles to practice, from foundations to features, and from abstraction
to application. The scope includes all languages that encourage functional
programming, including both purely applicative and imperative languages, as
well as languages with objects, concurrency, or parallelism. Topics of
interest include (but are not limited to):

* Language Design: concurrency, parallelism, and distribution; modularity;
components and composition; meta-programming; macros; pattern matching;
type systems; type inference; dependent types; effect types; gradual types;
refinement types; session types; interoperability; domain-specific
languages; imperative programming; object-oriented programming; logic
programming; probabilistic programming; reactive programming; generic
programming; bidirectional programming.

* Implementation: abstract machines; virtual machines; interpretation;
compilation; compile-time and run-time optimisation; garbage collection and
memory management; runtime systems; multi-threading; exploiting parallel
hardware; interfaces to foreign functions, services, components, or
low-level machine resources.

* Software-Development Techniques: algorithms and data structures; design
patterns; specification; verification; validation; proof assistants;
debugging; testing; tracing; profiling; build systems; program synthesis.

* Foundations: formal semantics; lambda calculus; program equivalence;
rewriting; type theory; logic; category theory; computational effects;
continuations; control; state; names and binding; program verification.

* Analysis and Transformation: control flow; data flow; abstract
interpretation; partial evaluation; program calculation.

* Applications: symbolic computing; formal-methods tools; artificial
intelligence; systems programming; distributed systems and web programming;
hardware design; databases; scientific and numerical computing; graphical
user interfaces; graphics and multimedia; GPU programming; scripting;
system administration; security.

* Education: teaching introductory programming; mathematical proof; algebra.

Submissions will be evaluated according to their relevance, correctness,
significance, originality, and clarity. Each submission should explain its
contributions in both general and technical terms, clearly identifying what
has been accomplished, explaining why it is significant, and comparing it
with previous work. The technical content should be accessible to a broad

PACMPL issue ICFP 2024 also welcomes submissions in two separate categories
— Functional Pearls and Experience Reports — that must be marked as such
when submitted and that need not report original research results. Detailed
guidelines on both categories are given at the end of this call.

In an effort to achieve a balanced, diverse program, each author may be
listed as a (co)author on a maximum of four submissions. Submissions from
underrepresented groups are encouraged. Authors who require financial
support to attend the conference can apply for PAC funding (

The General Chair and PC Chair may not submit papers. PC members (other
than the PC Chair) may submit papers.

Please contact the Program Chair if you have questions or are concerned
about the appropriateness of a topic.

### Full Double-Blind Reviewing Process

ICFP 2024 will use a full double-blind reviewing process (similar to the
one used for POPL 2024 but different from the lightweight double-blind
process used in previous years). This means that identities of authors will
not be made visible to reviewers until after conditional-acceptance
decisions have been made, and then only for the conditionally-accepted
papers. The use of full double-blind reviewing has several consequences for

* Submissions: Authors must omit their names and institutions from their
paper submissions. In addition, references to authors’ own prior work
should be in the third person (e.g., not “We build on our previous work …”
but rather “We build on the work of …”).

* Supplementary material: Authors are permitted to provide supplementary
material (e.g., detailed proofs, proof scripts, system implementations, or
experimental data) along with their submission, which reviewers may (but
are not required to) examine. This material may take the form of a single
file, such as a PDF or a tarball. Authors must fully anonymize any
supplementary material. Links to supplementary material on external
websites are not permitted.

* Author response: In responding to reviews, authors should not say
anything that reveals their identity, since author identities will not be
revealed to reviewers at that stage of the reviewing process.

* Dissemination of work under submission: Authors are welcome to
disseminate their ideas and post draft versions of their paper(s) on their
personal website, institutional repository, or arXiv (reviewers will be
asked to turn off arXiv notifications during the review period). But
authors should not take steps that would almost certainly reveal their
identities to members of the Program Committee, e.g., directly contacting
PC members or publicizing the work on widely-visible social media or major
mailing lists used by the community.

The purpose of the above restrictions is to help the Program Committee and
external reviewers come to a judgment about the paper without bias, not to
make it impossible for them to discover the authors’ identities if they
were to try. In particular, nothing should be done in the name of anonymity
that weakens the quality of the submission. However, there are occasionally
cases where adhering to the above restrictions is truly difficult or
impossible for one reason or another. In such cases, the authors should
contact the Program Chair to discuss the situation and how to handle it.

### Preparation of submissions

* Deadline: The deadline for submissions is Wednesday, 28 February , 2024,
Anywhere on Earth (https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zones/aoe). This
deadline will be strictly enforced.

* Formatting: Submissions must be in PDF format, printable in black and
white on US Letter sized paper and interpretable by common PDF tools. All
submissions must adhere to the “ACM Small” template that is available (in
both LaTeX and Word formats) from

There is a limit of 25 pages for a full paper or Functional Pearl and 12
pages for an Experience Report; in either case, the bibliography and an
optional clearly marked appendix will not be counted against these limits.
Submissions that exceed the page limits or, for other reasons, do not meet
the requirements for formatting, will be summarily rejected.

See also PACMPL’s Information and Guidelines for Authors at

* Submission: Submissions will be accepted at https://icfp24.hotcrp.com/

Improved versions of a paper may be submitted at any point before the
submission deadline using the same web interface.

* Author Response Period: Authors will have a 72-hour period, starting at
12:00 (noon) AOE on Monday, 29 April, 2024, to read reviews and respond to

* Appendix and Supplementary Material: Authors have the option to include a
clearly marked appendix and/or to attach supplementary material to a
submission, on the understanding that reviewers may choose not to look at
such an appendix or supplementary material. Supplementary material may be
uploaded as a separate PDF document or tarball. Any supplementary material
must be uploaded at submission time, not by providing a URL in the paper
that points to an external repository. All supplementary material must be

* Authorship Policies: All submissions are expected to comply with the ACM
Policies for Authorship that are detailed at

* Republication Policies: Each submission must adhere to SIGPLAN’s
republication policy, as explained on the web at

* ORCID: ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier (an ORCID iD) that
you own and control, and that distinguishes you from every other
researcher: https://orcid.org/. ACM now require an ORCID iD for every
author of a paper, not just the corresponding author. So, the author who is
filling out the permission form should make sure they have the ORCID iDs
for all of their coauthors before filling out the form. Any authors who do
not yet have an ORCID iD can go to https://orcid.org/register to have one

### Review Process
This section outlines the two-stage process with lightweight double-blind
reviewing that will be used to select papers for PACMPL issue ICFP 2024.
New this year, ICFP 2024 will adapt a full double-blind reviewing process.
More information see below.

ICFP 2024 will have an Associate Chair who will help the PC Chair monitor
reviews, solicit external expert reviews for submissions when there is not
enough expertise on the committee, and facilitate reviewer discussions.

PACMPL issue ICFP 2024 will employ a two-stage review process. The first
stage in the review process will assess submitted papers using the criteria
stated above and will allow for feedback and input on initial reviews
through the author response period mentioned previously. As a result of the
review process, a set of papers will be conditionally accepted and all
other papers will be rejected. Authors will be notified of these decisions
on 20 May, 2024.

Authors of conditionally accepted papers will be provided with committee
reviews along with a set of mandatory revisions. By 11 June, 2024, the
authors should provide a second revised submission. The second and final
reviewing phase assesses whether the mandatory revisions have been
adequately addressed by the authors and thereby determines the final
accept/reject status of the paper. The intent and expectation is that the
mandatory revisions can feasibly be addressed within three weeks.

The second submission should clearly identify how the mandatory revisions
were addressed. To that end, the second submission must be accompanied by a
cover letter mapping each mandatory revision request to specific parts of
the paper. The cover letter will facilitate a quick second review, allowing
for confirmation of final acceptance within two weeks. Conversely, the
absence of a cover letter will be grounds for the paper’s rejection.

### Information for Authors of Accepted Papers
As a condition of acceptance, final versions of all papers must adhere to
the ACM Small format. The page limit for the final versions of papers will
be increased by two pages to help authors respond to reviewer comments and
mandatory revisions: 27 pages plus bibliography for a regular paper or
Functional Pearl, 14 pages plus bibliography for an Experience Report.

Authors of accepted submissions will be required to agree to one of the
three ACM licensing options, one of which is Creative Commons CC-BY
publication; this is the option recommended by the PACMPL editorial board.
A reasoned argument in favour of this option can be found in the article
Why CC-BY? published by OASPA, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers
Association. The other options are copyright transfer to ACM or retaining
copyright but granting ACM exclusive publication rights.

PACMPL is a Gold Open Access journal, and authors are encouraged to publish
their work under a CC-BY license. Gold Open Access guarantees permanent
free online access to the definitive version in the ACM Digital Library,
and the recommended CC-BY option also allows anyone to copy and distribute
the work with attribution. Gold Open Access has been made possible by
generous funding through ACM SIGPLAN, which will cover all open access
costs in the event authors cannot. Authors who can cover the costs may do
so by paying an Article Processing Charge (APC). PACMPL, SIGPLAN, and ACM
Headquarters are committed to exploring routes to making Gold Open Access
publication both affordable and sustainable.

ACM Author-Izer is a unique service that enables ACM authors to generate
and post links on either their home page or institutional repository for
visitors to download the definitive version of their articles from the ACM
Digital Library at no charge. Downloads through Author-Izer links are
captured in official ACM statistics, improving the accuracy of usage and
impact measurements. Consistently linking to the definitive version of an
ACM article should reduce user confusion over article versioning. After an
article has been published and assigned to the appropriate ACM Author
Profile pages, authors should visit
http://www.acm.org/publications/acm-author-izer-service to learn how to
create links for free downloads from the ACM DL.

The official publication date is the date the papers are made available in
the ACM Digital Library. This date may be up to two weeks prior to the
first day of the conference. The official publication date affects the
deadline for any patent filings related to published work.

Authors of each accepted submission are invited to attend and be available
for the presentation of that paper at the conference. The schedule for
presentations will be determined and shared with authors after the full
program has been selected.

### Artifact Evaluation
Authors of papers that are conditionally accepted in the first phase of the
review process will be encouraged (but not required) to submit supporting
materials for Artifact Evaluation. These items will then be reviewed by an
Artifact Evaluation Committee, separate from the paper Review Committee,
whose task is to assess how the artifacts support the work described in the
associated paper. Papers that go through the Artifact Evaluation process
successfully will receive a seal of approval printed on the papers
themselves. Authors of accepted papers will be encouraged to make the
supporting materials publicly available upon publication of the papers, for
example, by including them as “source materials” in the ACM Digital
Library. An additional seal will mark papers whose artifacts are made
available, as outlined in the ACM guidelines for artifact badging.

Participation in Artifact Evaluation is voluntary and will not influence
the final decision regarding paper acceptance.

### Special categories of papers
In addition to research papers, PACMPL issue ICFP solicits two kinds of
papers that do not require original research contributions: Functional
Pearls, which are full papers, and Experience Reports, which are limited to
half the length of a full paper. Authors submitting such papers should
consider the following guidelines.

* Functional Pearls
- A Functional Pearl is an elegant essay about something related to
functional programming. Examples include, but are not limited to:

- a new and thought-provoking way of looking at an old idea

- an instructive example of program calculation or proof

- a nifty presentation of an old or new data structure

- an interesting application of functional programming techniques

- a novel use or exposition of functional programming in the classroom

While pearls often demonstrate an idea through the development of a short
program, there is no requirement or expectation that they do so. Thus, they
encompass the notions of theoretical and educational pearls.

Functional Pearls are valued as highly and judged as rigorously as ordinary
papers, but using somewhat different criteria. In particular, a pearl is
not required to report original research, but, it should be concise,
instructive, and entertaining. A pearl is likely to be rejected if its
readers get bored, if the material gets too complicated, if too
much-specialised knowledge is needed, or if the writing is inelegant. The
key to writing a good pearl is polishing.

A submission that is intended to be treated as a pearl must be marked as
such on the submission web page and should contain the words “Functional
Pearl” somewhere in its title or subtitle. These steps will alert reviewers
to use the appropriate evaluation criteria. Pearls will be combined with
ordinary papers, however, for the purpose of computing the conference’s
acceptance rate.

* Experience Reports
The purpose of an Experience Report is to describe the experience of using
functional programming in practice, whether in industrial application, tool
development, programming education, or any other area.

Possible topics for an Experience Report include, but are not limited to:

- insights gained from real-world projects using functional programming

- comparison of functional programming with conventional programming in the
context of an industrial project or a university curriculum

- project-management, business, or legal issues encountered when using
functional programming in a real-world project

- curricular issues encountered when using functional programming in

- real-world constraints that created special challenges for an
implementation of a functional language or for functional programming in

An Experience Report is distinguished from a normal PACMPL issue ICFP paper
by its title, by its length, and by the criteria used to evaluate it.

Both in the papers and in any citations, the title of each accepted
Experience Report must end with the words “(Experience Report)” in
parentheses. The acceptance rate for Experience Reports will be computed
and reported separately from the rate for ordinary papers.

Experience Report submissions can be at most 12 pages long, excluding

Each accepted Experience Report will be presented at the conference, but
depending on the number of Experience Reports and regular papers accepted,
authors of Experience Reports may be asked to give shorter talks.

Because the purpose of Experience Reports is to enable our community to
understand the application of functional programming, an acceptable
Experience Report need not add to the body of knowledge of the
functional-programming community by presenting novel results or
conclusions. It is sufficient if the report describes an illuminating
experience with functional programming, or provides evidence for a clear
thesis about the use of functional programming. The experience or thesis
must be relevant to ICFP, but it need not be novel.

The review committee will accept or reject Experience Reports based on
whether they judge the paper to illuminate some aspect of the use of
functional programming. Anecdotal evidence will be acceptable provided it
is well-argued and the author explains what efforts were made to gather as
much evidence as possible. Typically, papers that show how functional
programming was used are more convincing than papers that say only that
functional programming was used. It can be especially effective to present
comparisons of the situations before and after the experience described in
the paper, but other kinds of evidence would also make sense, depending on
context. Experience drawn from a single person’s experience may be
sufficient, but more weight will be given to evidence drawn from the
experience of groups of people.

An Experience Report should be short and to the point. For an industrial
project, it should make a claim about how well functional programming
worked and why; for a pedagogy paper, it might make a claim about the
suitability of a particular teaching style or educational exercise. Either
way, it should produce evidence to substantiate the claim. If functional
programming worked in this case in the same ways it has worked for others,
the paper need only summarise the results — the main part of the paper
should discuss how well it worked and in what context. Most readers will
not want to know all the details of the experience and its implementation,
but the paper should characterise it and its context well enough so that
readers can judge to what degree this experience is relevant to their own
circumstances. The paper should take care to highlight any unusual aspects;
specifics about the experience are more valuable than generalities about
functional programming.

If the paper not only describes experience but also presents new technical
results, or if the experience refutes cherished beliefs of the
functional-programming community, it may be better to submit it as a full
paper, which will be judged by the usual criteria of novelty, originality,
and relevance. The Program Chair will be happy to advise on any concerns
about which category to submit to.

### About PACMPL
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages (PACMPL
https://pacmpl.acm.org/) is a Gold Open Access journal publishing research
on all aspects of programming languages, from design to implementation and
from mathematical formalisms to empirical studies. Each issue of the
journal is devoted to a particular subject area within programming
languages and will be announced through publicised Calls for Papers, like
this one.

### ICFP Organisers

General Chair:
  Marco Gaboardi (Boston University, USA)

Programme Chair:
  Brigitte Pientka (McGill University, Canada)

Associate Programme Chair:
  Gabriele Keller (Utrecht University, Netherlands)

Publicity Chair:
  Ilya Sergey (National University of Singapore, Singapore)

Programme Committee:


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20231130/4ce6a555/attachment.html>

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list