SIGPLAN Errata and Academic Disputes Policy


DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

When a published work is subsequently found to be incorrect or misleading, the authors should correct the record, following ACM’s policy for updating published papers.

Errata

Authors are encouraged to update the DL copy of the PDF of their paper with errata when a significant correction to the work needs to be made. The update should comply with ACM’s policy for updates. The authors are expected to similarly update any other publicly-available copies of the paper under their control.

Academic Disputes

Occasionally, a third party will bring to light information that throws into doubt the validity of the core of a published paper. Ideally, the authors of the affected paper will be approached by the complainant/s and will address the concerns through an erratum, following the Errata procedure. In the case where this does not occur, the following process should be applied.

The following process should be applied to any third party bringing to light information that seriously threatens the validity of a published SIGPLAN conference paper that has not been addressed by the authors through an erratum:

  1. The complainant/s should present their concern to the PC Chair of the proceedings in which the affected paper appears. The complaint will be limited to a single page of plain text (about 500 words, with references as necessary), and must be made within one year of the publication of the affected paper.

  2. The PC Chair may dismiss the complaint if they deem it to be not serious enough to warrant an erratum.

  3. The PC Chair will promptly forward the complaint to the affected authors and give the authors one month in which to respond.

  4. The authors may respond to the complaint by providing an erratum (above) or a rebuttal limited to a single page of plain text (about 500 words).

  5. In the case that the authors provide an erratum, the PC Chair will communicate the erratum to the complainant/s and give them one month in which to reconsider their complaint, at which point they may withdraw their complaint or return to step 1 with a complaint revised in light of the new erratum.

  6. In the case that the authors do not provide errata, the process completes.

At the completion of the process, the PC Chair will ensure that: a) any errata generated by the process are installed in the ACM DL (per the Errata procedure) and b) if not dismissed in step 2, the one-page complaint and the authors’ one-page response are included in the comments section of the paper’s DL entry, with a covering note from the PC Chair, and may be published in the front matter of the next proceedings of the conference. The PC Chair may “shepherd” either of the one-page documents if necessary to keep the discourse reasonable and professional. The authors are expected to similarly update any other publicly-available copies of the paper under their control.

Either party, if unsatisfied by the adjudication of the PC Chair, may take the matter to the conference’s SC.

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT