---

name: pldi-review-process description: Use when interpreting PLDI's review pipeline — double-blind HotCRP reviewing by a PL-implementor PC, the February author-response window, March notification, up-to-10% Distinguished Paper selection, and how post-acceptance artifact evaluation and PACMPL publication follow the decision.

PLDI Review Process

Model the pipeline from the 2026 cycle (pldi26.sigplan.org, read 2026-07-08), then re-anchor every date to the current edition: papers due November 13, 2025; reviews written over the winter; author response February 17-21, 2026; decisions March 5, 2026; artifact evaluation after acceptance; publication as PACMPL Issue PLDI; talks in Boulder June 17-19, 2026. Chairs rotate per edition — 2026 ran under Program Chair Manu Sridharan — so process details are one-cycle facts.

Who is reading you

The PC is dominated by people who have shipped compilers, runtimes, analyzers, and verifiers. Practical consequences:

• Claims are audited mechanically. A reviewer may re-derive your complexity bound, check your semantics against a corner case, or mentally rerun your benchmark protocol. Vague spots read as hidden flaws.
• "Would this survive contact with real programs?" is the ambient question. Toy-language-only evaluations need an explicit argument for why the toy captures the hard part.
• Double-blind is real but statistical: some reviewers will guess your lab; the process still requires the paper not to confirm it.

Stage-by-stage

Stage (2026 anchors)	What happens	Your lever
Nov deadline	Triage: format, page cap, anonymity, scope	Zero summary-rejection triggers (pldi-submission)
Winter reviewing	3+ reviews scored on novelty, soundness, evaluation, clarity	Already spent; the paper argues alone
Feb 17-21 response	Authors answer factual errors and direct questions	The one paragraph that saves a soundness doubt (pldi-author-response)
PC discussion	Reviews + response reconciled; champions matter	A response that arms your champion with quotable pointers
Mar 5 notification	Accept / reject (any shepherding terms come with the letter)	Deliver conditions precisely and fast
Post-acceptance	Artifact evaluation, badges, PACMPL production	pldi-artifact-evaluation, pldi-camera-ready

Whether a given cycle uses conditional acceptance or formal shepherding was not confirmed for 2026 (待核实) — read your notification letter as the authority.

Distinguished papers

Up to 10% of accepted papers may be designated Distinguished Papers; PLDI 2025 named 6 of 89 (about 6.7%). You cannot apply for it, but the profile is consistent: a crisp problem, a mechanism others can reuse, an evaluation beyond reproach, and usually a strong artifact. Aim the paper at that profile and let the committee do what it does.

Reading a decision

• Reject with soundness objections: fix before anything else; the same PC community reviews for POPL and OOPSLA, and a known-broken theorem follows you.
• Reject on evaluation: usually the cheapest repair — the SIGPLAN Empirical Evaluation checklist (pldi-reproducibility) is the reviewers' own rubric.
• Reject on fit ("this is a POPL paper", "this is engineering"): a routing signal, not a quality verdict; rerun pldi-topic-selection honestly.
• Accept: your response commitments are now contractual; see pldi-camera-ready.

Output format

[Stage] pre-submission / in review / response window / decided
[Review posture] champion? soundness doubts? evaluation objections?
[Response leverage] <which objections are answerable from the submitted PDF>
[Decision reading] accept path / repair-and-resubmit / re-route venue
[Next dates] <from the live cycle pages, with 待核实 flags>