LATE BREAKING RESULTS
Prospective authors are invited to submit a late breaking results (LBR) paper (2 pages, two-column format) describing original work. LBR papers should cover new research in any area relevant to the normal paper submission for DAC. Sufficient work must have been completed to indicate viability of the work, but by their nature LBR papers typically outline new and exciting results. Papers must use the template provided on the DAC web site. Accepted LBR submissions will be presented at a poster session where the LBR poster presenters will showcase their work and get timely feedback from professionals including academia, EDA industries, designers, and makers. At least one author must be present at the poster session. Publication in IEEE Xplore is contingent on registration for the conference and presentation at the poster session.
Once an LBR paper is accepted, authors are strongly recommended to create a 1-minute video articulating the key ideas and innovations. The video should be a publicly accessible link to introduce the work to the conference audience. There is no restriction on the creativity or content of the video. Examples of video can be slides with narration, video of a prototype, and simulation system demo.
Submit a Late Breaking Results Proposal
Prospective authors are invited to submit a LBR paper (2 pages, two-column format) describing original work. Submissions that are accepted to the LBR program are required to have one author register to the conference and present a poster in the DAC LBR session. LBR does not encourage resubmission of papers rejected at other venues. If a paper is submitted to LBR, after an earlier version has been rejected, the authors should disclose major innovations or breakthroughs to earlier submissions. No duplicate or concurrent submissions are allowed.
A title, abstract (approximately 100 words), a list of all co-authors and the entire Late breaking work must be submitted by February 28, 2023.
Each submitted manuscript must discuss original work that has not been previously published in other indexed research databases. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscript meets the submission guidelines outlined in the tabs at the top of this page. There will be no opportunity for re-submission to correct any issues. Your manuscript will be reviewed as a finalized manuscript. Preliminary submissions will be at a disadvantage.
- Submission Opens - January 10, 2023, 5:00PM (PST)
- Manuscript Deadline - February 28, 2023, 4:00PM (PST)
- Notification of Acceptance - March 24, 2023
- Confirmation Forms - March 31, 2023, 5:00PM (PDT)
- Copyright Forms Due - April 13, 2023, 5:00PM (PDT)
- Final Papers Due - April 13, 2023, 5:00PM (PDT)
SUBMISSION RULES (ABSTRACT & MANUSCRIPT)
- Submitter must enter names, affiliations, city, state, country and email address of ALL co-authors. The addition of new co-authors will not be permitted after February 28, 2023.
- DO NOT identify the author(s) by their name(s) or affiliation(s) anywhere on the manuscript or abstract, with all references to the author(s)’ own previous work or affiliations in the bibliographic citations being in the third person. Avoid the use of “omitted for blind review” in the bibliography section.
- The manuscript must be within 2 pages, double-columned, 9 or 10-pt font, in PDF format only, and be a readable file.
- Title should start with “Late Breaking Results: ...”
- The manuscript should focus on the contributions in these two pages and limit background and related work to the most essential.
- An author of each accepted LBR submission is required to:
- Bring a poster following the instructions provided.
- Sign and submit a Rights and Release form.
- One co-author on the presentation is required to pay the Speaker Registration Fee.
- The speaker must present the poster at the conference.
DAC adheres to strict rules regarding duplicate submissions. Submissions must be clearly novel and distinct with respect to other submissions to DAC 2023, concurrent submissions to other conferences and previously published work.
Submissions which fail to follow the above guidelines will be automatically rejected. In serious cases, the authors’ names will be reported to IEEE and kept in records, as well as sent to the Technical Chair or the Editor of the venue where the duplicate manuscript was submitted; the authors may be banned from publishing at future DAC conferences.
DISCLOSURE PROCESS FOR UNPUBLISHED WORK
When submitting to DAC, authors face a dilemma. DAC has a blind review process in which the author’s identity remains anonymous. However, the submission rules compel the authors to cite relevant publications that have already been accepted or are under review by another conference (such as ICCAD, DATE, ASP-DAC, etc.). Disclosing these papers under the citation list reveals the authors’ identities. To circumvent this issue, DAC has implemented a disclosure process.
When submitting a paper, the authors are asked to list each relevant paper that has not yet been published and include the corresponding pdf of the paper. The LBR Chair will be able to check for self-plagiarism and relevance without revealing the author identities to the reviewers. Failure to disclose such papers will be considered as omission of closely related work and subject to the same penalties outlined in the Duplicate Submissions, as discussed in the section.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
To further strengthen the review process, each submitter is asked to identify any Technical Program Committee (TPC) members with whom s/he has conflict of interests (COI). The TPC list is available in the submission site.
An author has a conflict with a member of the Technical Program Committee if one or more of the situations below holds:
- Advisor-advisee relation
- Co-authors of a paper (published and/or under review) in the last 24 months
- Author and TPC member are from the same institution
- Co-PIs of a grant in the last 2 years
- Close personal or family relationship
The submitter should indicate the COIs of all authors with members of the Technical Program Committee upon submission. Failure to do so may lead to automatic rejection of the submission. If the submitter marks members of the Technical Program Committee as COI where there is in fact no COI, which may also lead to automatic rejection.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
How should I submit the conflict of interest (COI) information?
Submitters should report COIs of all co-authors with respect to members of the Technical Program Committee upon submission. However, it is recommended that submitters work on marking COIs as soon as they submit their manuscript's abstract, since this task may require some time, which is often scarce in the final sprint towards the completion of a manuscript's submission. Modifications to marked COIs can be made any time prior to the manuscript deadline.
Authors are asked to mark all the TPC members who have COIs with at least one of the authors at the time of abstract registration. Do not mark any members of the Technical Program Committee as COI where there is in fact COI.
What if authors failed to identify TPC members with COI?
DAC assumes that authors have no additional COIs with TPC members, beside those that have been declared at the time of manuscript submission. If a manuscript is found to have failed in identifying a COI, during or after the paper selection process, the submitted manuscript will be automatically rejected. Same hold if members of the Technical Program Committee are marked as COI where there is in fact no COI.
Which category should I select when I submit my manuscript?
The Call for Contributions lists several categories; please select the most appropriate primary topic when submitting your abstract. Authors of submissions that cover cross-cutting topics should select a category that is closest to the essential contribution of the submission. Submissions will be asked to select a broad category (ex. “EDA1. System-on-chip and HW/SW Codesign. A complete list of available categories and topic areas can be found in the CFP. Please note that their separate categories for electronic design automation topics, embedded systems and software topics, autonomous electronic design, design and system security, and electronic design topics.
How do I avoid referencing my own work to ensure the integrity of the blind review process?
To satisfy the criteria for a blind review process, the Call for Contributions states that any references to the author(s) own previous work or affiliations in the bibliographic citations must be in the third person. For the blind review process, DO NOT LIST THE NAMES OR AFFILIATIONS OF ANY OF THE AUTHORS ANYWHERE ON THE MANUSCRIPT, except in the references section (if citation to prior work is required).
Example: A. and B. presented a method for listing self-referential citations in .
 A. A and B. B, How to write a research DAC paper, 2022.
DO NOT use “omitted for blind review” to cite authors’ own papers. Describe all related papers published by you as if they were written by others.
Citation of authors’ unpublished papers is not allowed, including citation of potential double and/or simultaneous submissions. If this situation arises, submitters must follow the disclosure requirements to disclose their (or thier co-authors) related work that is under review or accepted for publication.
I still have some questions. Who do I contact?
For additional information, please contact David Pan, the 60th DAC Technical Program Committee Co-Chair.
Authors of research manuscripts are required to specify the main category from the list below. Authors of submissions that cover cross-cutting topics should select a category that is closest to the essential contribution of the submission. Your selection should take into consideration the likely expertise of the group of people who will serve in reviewing manuscripts for each category.
REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS
- The papers are peer-reviewed and will be published as is (except for the addition of author names, affiliations, and acknowledgements) after acceptance. NO OTHER CHANGES ARE ALLOWED.
- DAC will still ensure that there are no conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers.
The reported result should be novel and interesting enough to warrant an acceptance as late breaking.
Additional criteria will include:
- Importance of the problem and quality of the technical contribution (design, method, research) described in the manuscript.
- Originality of the concepts used and described (whether tools, methods or design). Advances over previous approaches should be reflected by describing the significant improvement in the results section. Comparisons with other approaches are also important to justify the advancement claimed in your manuscript.
- Significance of the results obtained or expected with clues - by measurable quantitative criteria (runtime for tools, optimal results, time for design process steps, simplification or automation of manual effort, etc.).
- Degree of experimental validation of the concepts. Use in real designs or widely accepted benchmarks with measurable criteria for results is highly desirable, if not essential.
- A good discussion of limitations of the approach and concepts, and possible areas for future improvement.
- The quality of manuscript writing, use of English, organization and clarity of presentation.
One author of each accepted paper that is submitted to DAC for publication in the official conference proceedings is required by IEEE to sign a copyright form. Please note that paper copyright forms are no longer accepted and IEEE does not accept any addendum to their forms.