ACM SIGMOD Seattle, USA, 2023
sigmod pods logo


Seattle, USA, June 18-23, 2023,

** (NEW in 2023) Paper submission deadlines: April 15 (Cycle A), July 15 (Cycle B), October 15 (Cycle C)

The annual ACM SIGMOD conference is a leading international forum for data management researchers, practitioners, developers, and users to explore cutting-edge ideas and results, and to exchange techniques, tools, and experiences.


There are three research tracks in SIGMOD 2023:

Regular track papers are subject to double-blind double-anonymous* requirement; special track papers are not subject to this requirement (i.e., their review is single-blind anonymous* ).



We invite submissions relating to all aspects of the data life cycle. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

SIGMOD welcomes submissions on inter-disciplinary work, as long as there are clear contributions to management of data.


New development for SIGMOD 2023: There are 3 submission cycles (April, July and October). Each submission cycle involves two rounds of reviewing to allow for revisions. Papers rejected in one cycle are not allowed to be re-submitted in subsequent cycles All notification dates are approximate.

RESEARCH PAPER SUBMISSION CYCLE A (All Deadlines are 11:59 PM Pacific Time)
April 15, 2022 : Paper submission
May 25-27, 2022: Author feedback phase
June 20, 2022: Notification of accept//reject/review again
July 20, 2022: Revised paper submission
August 23, 2022: Final notification of accept/reject

RESEARCH PAPER SUBMISSION CYCLE B (All Deadlines are 11:59 PM Pacific Time)
July 15, 2022 : Paper submission
August 25-27, 2022: Author feedback phase
September 20, 2022: Notification of accept//reject/review again
October 20, 2022: Revised paper submission
November 23, 2022: Final notification of accept/reject

RESEARCH PAPER SUBMISSION CYCLE C (All Deadlines are 11:59 PM Pacific Time)
October 15, 2022 : Paper submission
November 25-27, 2022: Author feedback phase
December 20, 2022: Notification of accept//reject/review again
January 20, 2023: Revised paper submission
February 23, 2023: Final notification of accept/reject


All accepted papers will be treated equally in the conference proceedings, which are the persistent record of the conference. Authors of all accepted papers will have an opportunity (and in fact, barring an exceptional situation, will be expected) to disseminate their works in person as part of the conference program.

The rights of all ACM published authors are detailed at


The official publication date is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. This date may be up to two weeks prior to the first day of the conference. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work.


All aspects of the submission and notification process will be handled electronically. Submissions must adhere to the paper formatting instructions. All papers will be judged for quality and relevance. Submissions should be uploaded at:

Once the paper is submitted, SIGMOD does not accept any changes in the title and/or authorship list, with the rare exception of authors having to comply with the revision requests and to acknowledge the work that someone has put in to revise a paper according to what the reviewers have requested. If such a change is warranted, the change has to be made on the submission site, and the PC chairs have to be informed through CMT, before the submission of the revised manuscript.


Following the ACM guidelines a research paper submitted to SIGMOD 2023 cannot be under review for any other publishing forum or presentation venue, including conferences, workshops, and journals, during the time it is being considered for SIGMOD. Furthermore, after you submit a research paper to SIGMOD, you must await the response from SIGMOD and only re-submit elsewhere if your paper is rejected - or withdrawn at your request - from SIGMOD. This restriction applies not only to identical papers but also to papers with a substantial overlap in scientific content and results.

To enforce this requirement, the high-level metadata of submissions (title, abstract, list of authors), may be shared with the Program Chairs / Editors of other conferences and journals.

Every research paper submitted to SIGMOD 2023 must present substantial novel research not described in any prior publication. In this context, a prior publication is (a) a paper of five pages or more presented, or accepted for presentation, at a refereed conference or workshop with proceedings; or (b) an article published, or accepted for publication, in a refereed journal. If a SIGMOD 2023 submission has overlap with a prior publication, the submission must cite the prior publication, along with all other relevant published work.

Any violation of this policy will result in the immediate rejection of the submission, as well as in notification to the members of the SIGMOD Executive Committee, the members of the SIGMOD PC, and the editors or chairs of any other forums involved.


As a published ACM author, you and your co-authors are subject to all ACM Publications Policies, including ACM's new Publications Policy on Research Involving Human Participants and Subjects.


The ACM template changed in 2017. Make sure you are using the latest version.

Length for submitted papers: All submitted research papers must be formatted according to the instructions below. The main content of the paper must be no more than 12 pages in length for the Regular Trackpapers and 8 pages for Special Track papers, although we allow an unlimited number of pages for the bibliography. No appendix will be allowed.

Length for revised and camera ready papers: For all tracks in the SIGMOD Research papers, authors are allowed one extra page to help address reviewer comments in the revised version only. Therefore, the length of camera ready papers can be up to: 13 pages (+ unlimited references) for the Regular Track papers and 9 pages (plus unlimited references) for the Special Track papers.

File type: Each research paper is to be submitted as a single PDF file, formatted for 8.5" x 11" paper and no more than 10 MB in file size. (Larger files will be rejected by the submission site.) Submitted papers must print without difficulty on a variety of printers, using Adobe Acrobat Reader. It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure that their submitted PDF file will print easily on simple default configurations.

Formatting: Research papers must follow the 2-column ACM Proceedings Format, using either the sample-sigconf.tex or Interim layout.docx template provided at for LaTeX (version 2e) or Word, respectively. If you plan to use ACM's official Overleaf template, please use the 2-column template available at The margins, inter-column spacing, and line spacing in the templates must be kept unchanged. Any submitted paper violating the length, file type, or formatting requirements will be rejected without review.


Regular track papers are subject to double-blind double-anonymous* requirement; special track papers are not subject to this requirement.

Every regular track paper submitted to SIGMOD 2023 will undergo a ''double-blind'' ''double-anonymous''* reviewing process, following the three principles put forward in (Snodgrass 2007): authors should not be required to go to great lengths to anonymize their submissions; comprehensiveness of the review trumps anonymizing efficacy. AEs retain flexibility and authority in managing the reviewing process.

PC members and referees, except the Associate Editors, who review the paper will not know the identity of the authors. To ensure anonymity of authorship from the PC members and referees, authors must at least do the following:

Note that the SIGMOD PC members and reviewers are expected to evaluate the originality of a submission and the completeness of the included literature survey. This necessarily involves PC members and reviewers carrying out their own literature search. Therefore, to avoid compromising the double-blind double-anonymous* review process, we discourage online/public dissemination of pre-prints and working drafts of papers submitted to SIGMOD. In particular, to avoid reviewer bias potentially caused by de-anonymization through preprints (Bharadhwaj et al. 2020), SIGMOD does not allow submissions of papers that appear at pre-publication servers, such as arXiv, unless such servers allow authors to anonymize their papers, by at least temporarily masking their identity until the notification of accept/reject decisions.

You must also use care in referring to related past work, particularly your own, in the paper. For example, if you are Jane Smith, the following text gives away the authorship of the submitted paper:

In our previous work [1, 2], we presented two algorithms for ... In this paper, we build on that work by ...
[1] Jane Smith, "A Simple Algorithm for ...," Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 1997, pp. 1 - 10.
[2] Jane Smith, "A More Complicated Algorithm for ...," Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 1998, pp. 34 - 44.

The solution is to reference one's past work in the third person. This allows setting the context for your submission, while at the same time preserving anonymity:

In previous work [1, 2], algorithms were presented for ... In this paper, we build on that work by ...
[1] Jane Smith, "A Simple Algorithm for ...," Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 1997, pp. 1 - 10.
[2] Jane Smith, "A More Complicated Algorithm for ...," Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD 1998, pp. 34 - 44.

Despite the anonymity requirements, authors should still include all relevant work of their own in the references, using the above style; omitting them could potentially reveal their identity by negation. However, self-references should be limited to the essential ones, and extended versions of the submitted paper (e.g., technical reports or URLs for downloadable versions) must not be referenced.

Common sense and careful writing can go a long way toward preserving anonymity without diminishing the quality or impact of a paper. The goal is to preserve anonymity while still allowing the reader to fully grasp the context (related past work, including your own) of the submitted paper. In past years, this goal has been achieved successfully by thousands of papers.

It is the responsibility of authors to do their very best to preserve anonymity. Papers that do not follow the guidelines here, or otherwise potentially reveal the identity of the authors, are subject to immediate rejection.


SIGMOD strives to establish a culture where sharing research artifacts (data, results, code, and scripts) is the norm rather than an exception. SIGMOD reproducibility has three goals: (a) Highlighting the impact of database research papers; (b) enabling easy dissemination of research results; and (c) enabling easy sharing of code and experimentation set-ups. In this context, we expect all papers to make their code, data, scripts, and notebooks available if this is possible. Although it is not mandatory for acceptance, providing this extra material can help reviewers evaluate your work more thoroughly. Papers published at SIGMOD which have been successfully reproduced are also recognized and highlighted as such in the ACM Digital Library.

Please include a link with your materials in the text box provided in the submission form at the time of submission. For Regular Track submissions, the link and materials should preserve anonymity. For example this may be an anonymous GitHub repository. You may want to make sure that the link you provide is not indexed by search engines. On GitHub, you can do so by adding the following to the page head:

<meta name="robots" content="noindex">

We recognize that at the time of submission authors focus on fine-tuning the paper, and so we expect this link to be live within two weeks from submission. Reviewers that may need to look at the materials will not do so earlier than that. We do not expect a fully polished submission in terms of automatically reproducing results, but rather a reasonably clean version of the state of the code when submitting the paper. Please, do not use a shortened link which traces who accesses it.

In the event that you are not able to submit your code, data, scripts, and notebooks please explain in the text box provided in the submission form why this is the case.


We value Diversity and Inclusion in our community and professions. Both are important in our writing as well. Diversity of representation in writing is a simple but visible avenue to celebrate and ultimately help improve our community's diversity. Be mindful in your writing of not using language or examples that further the marginalization, stereotyping, or erasure of any group of people, especially historically marginalized and/or under-represented groups (URGs) in computing. Be vigilant and guard against unintentionally exclusionary examples.

Please visit this page for many examples of both exclusionary writing to avoid and inclusive writing that celebrates diversity to consider adopting: Authors are further encouraged to follow the tips and guidelines provided at: Reviewers will be empowered to monitor and demand changes if such issues arise. Going further, also consider actively raising the representation of URGs in writing.


During submission of a research paper, the submission site will request information about conflicts of interest of the paper’s authors with program committee (PC) members. It is the full responsibility of all authors of a paper to identify all and only their potential conflict-of-interest PC members, according to the following definition:

A paper author has a conflict of interest with a PC member when, and only when, one or more of the following conditions holds:

Papers with incorrect or incomplete conflict of interest information as of the submission closing time are subject to immediate rejection.

To identify any potentially spurious conflicts, PC members will be given a list of submitting authors who have indicated that they have a conflict with that PC member.


Number of reviews: Each paper will first receive at least three reviews. At the end of the first review round, if there is a broad agreement on a clear outcome, the AE may recommend accept or reject decision. If not, the submission will be invited for a revision followed by a second round of review.

Rebuttals: Before the discussion phase starts between reviewers and decisions are made, authors will have a few days to read the reviews and submit an optional short rebuttal. The sole purpose of the rebuttal is to clarify misunderstandings and factual errors through pointers to specific text in the submitted paper. As an example, a reviewer may have overlooked a part of the discussion in the paper and state that the paper fails to compare with a certain method; an example rebuttal will be of the form "see Section 2.4, paragraph 3". If no factual errors exist in the reviews, a rebuttal is not needed.

Revisions: Some papers will be invited to submit a revised version of their paper. Authors will have one month to implement the revision items. The revision process is intended to be a constructive partnership between reviewers and authors. To this end, reviewers will be instructed to request revisions only in constructive scenarios with specific requests. In turn, authors bear the responsibility of attempting to meet those requests within the stated time frame, or of withdrawing the paper from submission. Common revision requests can include ''justify a crucial assumption'', ''present a real(istic) scenario where the defined problem occurs'', ''clean up notation'', ''tighten presentation'', ''compare against some relevant previous system'', ''show experimental results with better data, such as at larger scale or from a real system''. Revisions will not be requested to address lack of technical depth or novelty or where the revised paper will address a substantially different problem from the original. For all tracks, one extra content page is allowed after the first review to accommodate the requested revision items and a cover page to summarize how the authors have addressed the requested revision items. Authors are encouraged to highlight parts of their revised manuscripts that are edited in a different color to ease their identification by the reviewers.

* Please see for inclusive alternatives for some of the terms commonly used in the computing profession.

Follow our progress: TwitterFacebook