Use when positioning an ACM SIGCOMM submission against the networking literature — sweeping SIGCOMM, NSDI, MobiCom, CoNEXT, IMC, and SIGMETRICS plus journals, proving each placement via dblp and the ACM Digital Library, distinguishing main-track papers from CCR editorials, handling concurrent work, and keeping self-citation double-blind-safe.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill sigcomm-related-work --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Sigcomm Related Work?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-sigcomm-related-work)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: sigcomm-related-work
description: Use when positioning an ACM SIGCOMM submission against the networking literature — sweeping SIGCOMM, NSDI, MobiCom, CoNEXT, IMC, and SIGMETRICS plus journals, proving each placement via dblp and the ACM Digital Library, distinguishing main-track papers from CCR editorials, handling concurrent work, and keeping self-citation double-blind-safe.
---
# SIGCOMM Related Work
Use this to audit novelty and placement. SIGCOMM is the broad networking flagship, so a paper
is read against the strongest prior work in its exact subarea — and against results scattered
across sibling venues. Reopen the current CFP for concurrent-submission and anonymity rules
before advising.
## Positioning checks
- Separate the **mechanism** you contribute from engineering polish: a new protocol, transport
signal, forwarding architecture, measurement-driven design, or programmable-data-plane
technique.
- Sweep the whole networking literature, not just SIGCOMM: the nearest prior work may sit in
NSDI, MobiCom, CoNEXT, IMC, SIGMETRICS, INFOCOM, or a journal like IEEE/ACM Transactions on
Networking. A bibliography that cites only SIGCOMM signals a narrow read.
- **Prove each placement.** Verify the venue and year on dblp and the ACM DL before you assert
it; do not rely on memory for where a famous result appeared.
- Distinguish **main-track proceedings** from **CCR editorial notes** — OpenFlow's famous CCR
note is not a SIGCOMM conference paper, and citing it as one is a checkable error.
- Handle concurrent and prior versions honestly, and keep every self-citation phrased so
double-blind review survives.
## Venue-coverage table
| Literature lane | Typical venues | What SIGCOMM reviewers check |
|---|---|---|
| Networking design flagships | SIGCOMM, NSDI, CoNEXT | Whether the nearest deployed mechanism is compared or distinguished |
| Wireless / mobile | MobiCom, SIGMOBILE venues | Whether relevant PHY/mobility work is acknowledged when adjacent |
| Measurement | IMC | Whether the motivating measurement rests on the right prior characterizations |
| Performance analysis | SIGMETRICS | Whether known models/bounds are credited |
| Archival journals | IEEE/ACM ToN, JSAC | Whether classical results are not being rediscovered |
A missing state-of-the-art comparison from the *right* venue is a recognizable SIGCOMM reject
pattern that benchmark strength alone does not repair.
## The misattribution guard
```text
Before citing "X appeared at SIGCOMM YYYY":
1. Find it on dblp.org/db/conf/sigcomm/ -> confirm the edition and page range
2. Confirm ACM DL lists it in the SIGCOMM conference proceedings, not CCR editorial
3. Rule out the sibling: Hedera is NSDI, RED is ToN, BBR is CACM
4. If unresolved -> mark 待核实 and do not assert the venue
```
## Positioning vignette
A paper proposes a data-center transport that schedules flows in the fabric. Its nearest
neighbors: an earlier SIGCOMM congestion-signal paper (DCTCP), a fabric-scheduling paper in the
same lineage (pFabric), and an NSDI flow-scheduling system that is often confused with it. The
novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — a different signal than the first, a
different scheduling granularity than the second, and a design rather than the deployed-system
framing of the NSDI neighbor — with each venue verified.
## Concurrent-work judgment calls
- Independently concurrent work at another venue: cite neutrally, state the technical
difference, and avoid priority claims reviewers cannot verify under blinding.
- Your own prior workshop or preprint version: cite in a blind-safe third person and confirm
the current CFP's stance on overlap before relying on it.
- When a venue's archival status is unclear, declare the overlap in the submission rather than
gambling on a chair's reading.
## Output format
```text
[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Closest venues] <SIGCOMM / NSDI / MobiCom / CoNEXT / IMC / journal>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> distinction, each venue verified>
[Misattribution risk] <CCR-vs-main-track / sibling-venue traps checked>
[Novelty sentence] <SIGCOMM-ready mechanism contrast>
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!