The order of submitting extended abstracts
A peculiarity of RCDL is that all the materials submitted are reviewed
anonymously by the members of the programming committee. Anonymity enables the
referees to express their opinion about the papers more objectively and frankly
and thus presents an important tool for objective assessment and selection of
papers to be presented at the conference.
Abstracts are accepted on-line through the registered participant private cell (Section "Send abstracts").
To submit your abstract you have to be registered on the web-site of the conference (Section “Registration”). After registration you will receive your private data. To enter in your private cell the registered participant must type e-mail in Login-field and private password , which was indicated while filling in the form by registration, in Password- field.
Extended abstracts are to be submitted in the RTF and PDF formats. The size of the file should not exceed 5 MB.
Recommendations on preparing extended abstracts.
The aim of abstract recommendations is to help the authors to prepare their
materials in such a way that would enable the referees to get rather a complete
idea of their work.
First of all you should bear in mind that abstracts are to be extended (up to 5 pages). In other words, extended abstracts present brief papers rather than 1-2 page abstracts which are traditionally published in Conference Proceedings. It is reasonable (though by no means necessary) to make your abstract as detailed as possible. Long abstracts (of size up to 5 pages) are appreciated, since more detailed presentation enables the referees to get a more adequate idea of the paper.
The authors should become acquainted with the list of the main subjects of the Conference and take a decision of the character of the paper they want to present. This may not appear a simple problem. Thus, at one of the previous RCDL we received extended abstracts that contained description of the mathematical model (approximately 2 pages) and description of the project of the system realization (also approximately 2 pages) which was slightly if at all correlated with the mathematical model. As a result it was impossible to assess the model suggested (in view of the brevity of the description) neither could the referees understand what were the peculiarities of the system developed. If the authors had concentrated on only one subject the results of the reviewing could have been better. It might even have been reasonable for the authors to present two different papers concerned with two different subjects.
While filling in web-forms concerning extended abstracts, authors are requested to index theme or topics for the classification of their talks to ease distribution among reviewers.
Recall that correctness of citation is one of the criteria used to assess a abstract. The practice of previous RCDL has shown that many authors did not present the list of references at all, which inevitably led to markdown for that only reason.
An important requirement imposed on research papers is that they should be original. Of course, the authors cannot guarantee that similar results were not obtained earlier by anybody else, however, a brief review of similar recent publication with an analysis of their differences from the paper submitted considerably enhances the assurance of both the authors and the referees that similar results indeed were not published earlier. (Or, more pessimistically, this enables a referee to conclude that the material has not been prepared carefully enough).
The requirement of novelty is not necessary for papers devoted to development of particular systems of specific libraries. For example, if a paper describes progress in the development of a system or a library during some period of time after the previous report, this paper obviously cannot contain any new scientific results. In this case, however, you should prepare your text in such a way that a referee can get rather a complete idea of the system or library without addressing to your previous publications. At the same time you should show in what your publication differs from the previous one. In many cases we may recommend to present such papers in less than 5 pages.
You are recommended to look at the list and content of reports published on the sites of former RCDL’2007, RCDL’2006 conferences available at www.rcdl.ru
The report accepted, an author will be offered to prepare an article for publication. Instructions for formatting articles will be available in detail in the sample:
RTF (English version)