CACM Research Highlights NominationsThe SIGARCH executive committee established a sub-committee in 2013 to nominate papers from SIGARCH sponsored conferences for CACM Research Highlights.
The three person sub-committee is chaired by the SIGARCH vice-chair and has sole responsibility on behalf of SIGARCH for deciding which papers to submit to the CACM Research Highlights editorial board.
The committee requests the program chair of each SIGARCH conference to recommend up to three papers for consideration. The recommendations should be made after the conference completes, to take into account community reaction, but no more than one week after the last day.
It is important to note that the criteria for nominations to Research Highlights are not necessarily the same as those for traditional conference best paper awards. The nominations need to be of broad interest beyond the architecture community. They must create excitement and do not necessarily need to have all the details worked out. Papers with surprising results that stir stimulating debate at the conference are particularly encouraged.
The committee encourages program chairs to run an audience survey as input for their recommendations. An example survey used in a recent conference appears at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/M35DH7T.
Program chairs should send their recommendations to the SIGARCH vice-chair at firstname.lastname@example.org along with the process used. The final selection by the CACM board is competitive. To aid in writing strong nominations, the committee requests program chairs to forward reviews and author responses for the nominated papers. These have been very helpful in the past; e.g., to highlight strengths, address any perceived weaknesses, and identify technical perspective writers. Please see the SIGARCH policy below regarding this issue.
SIGARCH policy regarding forwarding review materials to the SIGARCH Research Highlights committee:
SIGARCH permits PC chairs of SIGARCH sponsored conferences to forward review materials (including reviews, online discussion comments among reviewers, and author responses) to the SIGARCH committee for nominating papers for CACM research highlights, subject to the following requirements:
(1) A committee member with a conflict of interest for a paper will not see the review materials for the paper.
(2) The PC chair will obtain permission from the authors before forwarding the review materials for a paper to the committee.
(3) The PC chair will either redact reviewer identifying information from the review materials forwarded to the committee or will obtain permission from the reviewers to provide this information.
To simplify (2), SIGARCH encourages PC chairs to include the following statement in the call for papers:
According to SIGARCH guidelines, reviewer comments and author rebuttals for selected papers may be shared with (non-conflicted) members of the SIGARCH committee for nominating papers for CACM research highlights.
To simplify (3), SIGARCH encourages PC chairs to include the following statement in the invitation to PC members, ERC members, and ad hoc reviewers:
According to SIGARCH guidelines, reviews and online discussion comments for selected papers (along with reviewer identification) may be shared with (non-conflicted) members of the SIGARCH committee for nominating papers for CACM research highlights.
Sarita Adve, chair, Illinois
Steve Keckler, UT-Austin/Nvidia
David Patterson, UC Berkeley