Why do most papers in CS conferences say "novel" repeatedly now a days?

I find this extremely irritating.

It is up to me, as the reader, to judge whether this is novel or not.

Please tell me what you have done, rather than telling me that (you think) it is novel.

Don't tell me that your results are important, or surprising, or anything like that. I will judge the importance or surprise or novelty.

It is not like if you didn't tell me it is important (if indeed it is) I wouldn't notice.

And if it is not novel, why would you be submitting it to the conference, anyway?

It's fine to say, in your paper, that (in your view) *somebody else's* results are interesting, novel, surprising, important, etc. But such statements about your own work carry no weight.

"But such statements about your own work carry no weight."

I would say more: they make your paper seem suspicious.

@MartinEscardo There is a great deal of protesting too much, to be sure. And papers are not where the worst of it is to be found.

The other extreme, "My monomania has yielded theorems. Why you should value them is none of my business.", is also problematic, but cheaper.

@pigworker

It is perfectly possible, and this is what most people do, to write a paper to induce people to believe it is novel, important, surprising and interesting.

These are, indeed, the reasons why a paper is written and submitted and refereed and published and read.

A paper doesn't become important because the author says it is important. Or novel. Or surprising. Or interesting.

@MartinEscardo Congratulations on achieving true Britishness!

The author has a delicate line to walk. They must lead the reviewer to conclude their work is awesome without saying it is awesome. Many people find such subtlety difficult. I find it difficult to write at all, because I've been so dead for so long.

When Neil Ghani rewrites your work, he finds the sentence written between the lines and puts it in plain sight. Unevidenced puff is worthless. Evidenced puff is what makes the reviewers pay attention to the evidence.

@pigworker

I strongly oppose the idea that the paper is written for the reviewer.

The paper is written for the readers.

@MartinEscardo @pigworker The reviewer is the gatekeeper. If the paper is not written for the reviewer, then it will necessarily not be written for the reader, who will never get to see it.

Source: A reader who has been told many times that a paper I would have loved to see was rejected.

@zanzi @MartinEscardo @pigworker This discussion has made me think harder about writing one paper for the reviewers, and a (slightly) different one for readers.
@zanzi @MartinEscardo @pigworker I have recently discussed including a "note to reviewers" in a draft under review, specifically to direct the reviewers towards questions on which I would value an opinion. Of course that gets deleted between acceptance and publication.
@zanzi @MartinEscardo @pigworker I could go further down this path...

@jer_gib @zanzi @MartinEscardo @pigworker based on repeated reviews complaining that I don’t explain Idris syntax in sufficient details, I have always thought about including a ‘readers guide & assumptions guide’ in the last bit of the introduction. The guide gives pointers to documents that provide extra information, my assumptions on readers, and guide about digesting the work. (Peppering this information in the intro and body is not obvious enough) Similar to what some people do in their thesis.

Sadly there is never enough room, after the standard words on semantic highlighting…

@jfdm @jer_gib @zanzi @pigworker

Yes. Conferences have a page limit, and at the same time want you to explain everything.

Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford: Publication - Profunctor Optics: Modular Data Accessors

Data accessors allow one to read and write components of a data structure, such as the fields of a record, the variants of a union, or the elements of a container. These data accessors are collectively known as optics; they are fundamental to programs that manipulate complex data. Individual data accessors for simple data structures are easy to write, for example as pairs of "getter" and "setter" methods. However, it is not obvious how to combine data accessors, in such a way that data accessors for a compound data structure are composed out of smaller data accessors for the parts of that structure. Generally, one has to write a sequence of statements or declarations that navigate step by step through the data structure, accessing one level at a time—which is to say, data accessors are traditionally not first-class citizens, combinable in their own right. We present a framework for modular data access, in which individual data accessors for simple data structures may be freely combined to obtain more complex data accessors for compound data structures. Data accessors become first-class citizens. The framework is based around the notion of profunctors, a flexible generalization of functions. The language features required are higher-order functions ("lambdas" or "closures"), parametrized types ("generics" or "abstract types") of higher kind, and some mechanism for separating interfaces from implementations ("abstract classes" or "modules"). We use Haskell as a vehicle in which to present our constructions, but other languages such as Scala that provide the necessary features should work just as well. We provide implementations of all our constructions, in the form of a literate program: the manuscript file for the paper is also the source code for the program, and the extracted code is available separately for evaluation. We also prove the essential properties, demonstrating that our profunctor-based representations are precisely equivalent to the more familiar concrete representations. Our results should pave the way to simpler ways of writing programs that access the components of compound data structures.

Department of Computer Science

@jer_gib @zanzi @MartinEscardo @pigworker

that's nice

From the looks of it SIGPLAN does allow appendices of unknown length at submission time. However, how these translate to camera ready copy is not immediately clear to me.

@jfdm @zanzi @MartinEscardo @pigworker "Authors of accepted papers may provide additional online-only material, and a brief description thereof, that will be available from the paper's webpage in the ACM Digital Library. See Additional Online-only Material for more details." https://dl.acm.org/journal/pacmpl/author-guidelines
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACM ON PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES Author Guidelines | ACM Digital Library

Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages (PACMPL) is a Gold Open Access journal publishing research on all aspects of programming languages, from design to implementation and from mathematical formalisms to empirical studies. Each issue of the journal is devoted to a particular subject area within programming languages and will be announced through publicized Calls for Papers. All accepted papers receive two rounds of reviewing and authors can expect initial decisions regarding submissions in under 3 months. The journal operates in close collaboration with the Special Interest Group on Programming Languages (SIGPLAN) and is committed to making high-quality peer-reviewed scientific research in programming languages free of restrictions on both access and use.

Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
@jfdm @zanzi @MartinEscardo @pigworker That's PACMPL specifically, but I think it applies across ACM. Springer LNCS also allows online appendices.

@jer_gib @jfdm @zanzi @pigworker

Mathematical Structures in Computer Science also allows that. It also allows you to upload code as additional material, which I have done in a publication there.