Please read these guidelines carefully. We have written them to help you give your submission its best possible chance to be accepted. (As you know, the Program Committee can't accept every paper submitted to the conference.)

Generally speaking, we are looking for papers in a broad range of practical issues in the technology and use of open computer systems. However, please don't choose not to submit your paper because you think that it will not "fit" the USENIX conference format. Some of the best papers of the past conferences have been papers that were unusual and definitely not "traditional".

The key element of a good paper is that it teaches the readers something that they can use when designing or using their systems, or causes them to think about a computing issue in new ways.

CONFERENCE DATES

The 2nd Domain-Specific Languages Conference will be held in Austin, Texas, October 3-6, 1999.

• Submissions due: March 22, 1999
• Notification to authors: June 2, 1999
• Camera-ready papers due: August 24, 1999

THE CALL FOR PAPERS

For your convenience, here is a summary of the important information in the Call For Papers:

• Authors must submit a full draft of the paper to the program chair via both of the following methods. Papers should be 10 to 14 single-spaced 8.5"x11" pages, including all figures and references.

  All submissions will be acknowledged.

• One electronic copy in PostScript (not ASCII) must be submitted by electronic mail to dsl99papers@usenix.org accompanied by this form. (MIME attachments are allowed.)

• Surface mail to (15 copies):

  		Thomas Ball
  		Room 2A-314
  		Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies
  		263 Shuman Boulevard
  		Naperville, IL 60566-7050 
  

WHAT KINDS OF PAPERS DOES USENIX PUBLISH?

The most important thought to keep in mind when deciding whether to submit a paper is "what will the audience or readers learn from my paper?" We don't expect every paper to report on a major breakthrough, but we do look for something new, potentially useful, and not entirely obvious. Think about how different your work is from previously published papers; it may be good work but if there is nothing new to learn, it isn't worth reading (or writing) a conference paper about it. Think about how other people might find your work useful; can they apply what you are teaching them to their own systems? And, does your work really improve upon the previous state of the art? Or does it show how other people have been confused? "Negative results" that contradict the conventional wisdom are often more important than positive results.

Trying to decide if something is non-obvious isn't easy (patent lawyers make lots of money arguing about this), and sometimes the best ideas seem obvious in hindsight; but if lots of people have done the same thing, and you are simply the first person to have considered writing a paper about it, perhaps it's too obvious.

The Program Committee will also be trying to decide if papers will lead to a good 30-minute presentation. Some systems are just too complex to be presented this way (perhaps you should focus on just one aspect); other papers just don't have enough to talk about for that long. On the other hand, a few rare papers are accepted mostly because the committee expects them to produce an interesting talk, but that might not otherwise merit publication.

Again, when you are writing your paper, keep in mind "what do I intend to teach the reader?" That means keeping the paper focused on one or a few main points. Don't try to cram too many big issues into the paper, and don't fill it up with irrelevant details. But do include enough background for the reader to understand why your problem is important, how your work relates to previous work in the field, and how it might fit into a practical system. Also, provide enough detail for the reader to put your performance measurements in context. It is vitally important to provide a good bibliography, both so that you give proper credit to previous work, and so that a reader can know where to turn to find additional background information. The program committee will not look kindly on a paper if the author doesn't appear to be familiar with the current literature.

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY A DRAFT OF A FULL PAPER?

You will have the opportunity to revise your paper before the camera-ready copy deadline, so it's OK to have a few rough edges or to include a few explanatory notes for the program committee. However, a submitted draft of your paper should include essentially all of your results and a substantial portion of your analysis. Please do not omit any essential details.

HOW SHOULD I GET MY MANUSCRIPT TO YOU?

The Program Committee requires paper submissions in both paper and electronic form. Submissions via email should be sent in PostScript format.

Some PostScript generators are quite buggy and we may not be able to print their output. For example, lots of software generates PostScript that can only be printed on Apple Laserwriters. Please remember the following:

• Use only the most basic of fonts (TimesRoman, Helvetica, Courier). Other fonts are often not available with every printer or previewer. For the text, please use 11 point type.

• PostScript that requires some special prolog to be loaded into the printer won't work for us. Don't send it.

• If you used a PC or Macintosh-based word processor to generate your PostScript, print it on a more generic PostScript printer before sending it, to make absolutely sure that the PostScript is portable.

DON'T send files meant for other word-processing packages (Word, WordPerfect, MacWrite, etc.). We don't have the resources to deal with them.

Since electronic mail systems have been known to mangle mail, it is always a good idea to wrap up your submission either by using MIME encapsulation (quoted-printable or base64, as appropriate) or by using shar(1) or tar(1). Note, if you use tar, or, if your email contains any non-printing characters, use uuencode(1) to convert your email to pure ASCII characters.

Overseas authors should make sure that their abstract prints properly on US-style 8.5x11 inch paper. Please make sure that you leave enough room for top and bottom margins.

MORE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE:

Lots of papers and books have been written about how to write a good paper. We strongly suggest that you read a paper called An Evaluation of the Ninth SOSP Submissions; or, How (and How Not) to Write a Good Systems Paper. This was written by Roy Levin and David D. Redell, the program committee co-chairs for SOSP-9, and first appeared in ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, Vol. 17, No. 3 (July, 1983), pages 35-40.

The authors have graciously agreed to make this paper available online. You can also retrieve a separate copy by sending email to info@usenix.org, including the line send advice papers in the body of your email.

Another helpful paper is:

"The Science of Scientific Writing", George D. Gopen and Judith A. Swan, American Scientist, Vol. 78, No. 6 (Nov-Dec, 1990), pp. 550-558.

This article describes not how to write an entire paper, but how to write sentences and paragraphs that readers can understand. Unfortunately, due to copyright restrictions we cannot make this available online or send you photocopies, but almost any library should have copies of this magazine.

We also recommend that you read the proceedings of some recent USENIX conferences to get an idea of what kinds of papers are published. Not every one of these papers is perfect (or even great), but most of them are better than most of the ones that got rejected.

Finally, if you have any other questions, feel free to send mail to the Program Chairman at tball@research.bell-labs.com.

Good Luck,
The Program Committee