ECOOP 2026 - Technical Papers - ECOOP 2026 (original) (raw)

This program is tentative and subject to change.

The program is currently displayed in (GMT+02:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris.

Use conference time zone: (GMT+02:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, ParisSelect other time zone

The GMT offsets shown reflect the offsets at the moment of the conference.

By setting a time band, the program will dim events that are outside this time window. This is useful for (virtual) conferences with a continuous program (with repeated sessions).
The time band will also limit the events that are included in the personal iCalendar subscription service.

Display full programSpecify a time band

-

You're viewing the program in a time zone which is different from your device's time zone change time zone

Accepted Papers

Call for Papers

ECOOP is a conference about programming originally focused on object orientation, but now including all practical and theoretical investigations of programming languages, systems and environments. ECOOP solicits innovative solutions to real problems as well as evaluations of existing solutions.

Authors are asked to pick one of the following categories:

• Research. The most traditional category for papers that advance the state of the art.
• Replication. An empirical evaluation that reconstructs a published experiment in a different context in order to validate the results of that earlier work.
• Experience. Applications of known PL techniques in practice as well as tools. Industry papers will be reviewed by practitioners. We welcome negative results that may provide inspiration for future research.
• Pearls/Brave New Ideas. Articles that either explain a known idea in an elegant way or unconventional papers introducing ideas that may take some time to substantiate. These papers may be short.

Submissions

Submitted papers must adhere to the SIGPLAN Republication Policy and the ACM Policy on Plagiarism. Particularly, submissions must not have been published, or have major overlap with previous work. Authors should bring simultaneously submitted related papers to the attention of all relevant program chairs. If the program chairs deem the related papers to be simultaneous duplicate submissions, the authors should be asked to withdraw all but one of the submissions. If the degree of similarity is unclear, the program committees should evaluate the submissions on the assumption that all other simultaneous related submissions will be accepted. In case of doubt, contact the program chairs.

Proceedings will be published in open access by Dagstuhl LIPIcs in the Dagstuhl LIPIcs LaTeX-style template. To reduce friction when resubmitting, ACM’s PACMPL and TOPLAS formatted papers can be submitted as such (with the understanding that if accepted, they will need to be reformatted and reduced to the page limit).

ECOOP uses double-anonymous reviewing. Authors’ identities are only revealed if a paper is accepted. Papers must omit author names and institutions, and use the third person when referencing the authors’ own work. Nothing should be done in the name of anonymity that weakens the submission; see the Double-Anonymous FAQ. If in doubt, contact the chairs.

There is no page limit on submissions, but authors must understand that reviewers have a fixed time budget for each paper, so the length of the feedback is likely to be unaffected by length. Brevity is a virtue. Authors also have to consider that the camera-ready version must be (at most) 25 pages in LIPIcs format (not including references).

Authors will be given a four-day period to read and respond to the reviews of their papers before the program committee meeting. Responses have no length limit.

ECOOP will continue to have two deadlines for submissions. Papers submitted in each round can be (a) accepted, (b) rejected, or (c) asked for revisions. Rejected papers that are submitted to the immediate next round can be desk-rejected if they do not sufficiently differ from the previous submission. Revisions can be submitted at any later round. Papers retain their reviewers during revision.

Artifact Evaluation and Intent

To support replication of experiments, authors of accepted research papers may submit artifacts to the Artifact Evaluation Committee. They will be asked whether they intend to submit an artifact at paper submission time. Artifacts will be submitted after paper acceptance. It is understood that some papers do not have artifacts.

Journal First and Journal After

We have Journal First/After arrangements with ACM’s Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), Elsevier’s Science of Computer Programming (SCP) and AITO’s Journal of Object Technology (JOT).

Only new research papers are eligible to be Journal First (JF). JF papers will have an extended abstract in the ECOOP proceedings. The deadline is the same as Round 1 of submissions and the notification is aligned with Round 2 notification. TOPLAS JF papers should be submitted according to this announcement. SCP JF papers should follow this call for papers. JF papers are presented at the conference and eligible for awards.

Journal After (JA) papers are papers for which the authors request to be considered for post conference journal publication. Once accepted by the ECOOP PC, these papers will be forwarded to the journal editors. Reviews and reviewers will be forwarded and used at the editor’s discretion. JA papers will have an extended abstract (up to 12 pages) in the conference proceedings.

ECOOP 2026 follows the same guidelines for double blind reviewing as POPL 2026. We include the relevant parts (adapted for ECOOP) below:

Q: What exactly do I have to do to anonymize my paper?

A: Use common sense. Your job is not to make your identity undiscoverable but simply to make it possible for reviewers to evaluate your submission without having to know who you are. The specific guidelines stated in the call for papers are simple: omit authors’ names from your title page, and when you cite your own work, refer to it in the third person. For example, if your name is Smith and you have worked on amphibious type systems, instead of saying “We extend our earlier work on statically typed toads [Smith 2004],” you might say “We extend Smith’s [2004] earlier work on statically typed toads.” Also, be sure not to include any acknowledgements that would give away your identity, and avoid revealing the institutional affiliation of authors or at which the work was performed.

If you believe for some reason that it is impossible to anonymize your paper without significantly weakening it, please feel free to get in touch with the Program Chairs to discuss the situation.

Q: I would like to provide supplementary material for consideration, e.g., the code of my implementation or proofs of theorems. How do I do this?

A (and also see the next question): On the submission site there will be an option to submit supplementary material along with your main paper. This supplementary material should also be anonymized; it may be viewed by reviewers during the review period, so it should adhere to the same double-blind guidelines.

Q: My submission is based on code available in a public repository or I would like to provide a link to an online demo. How do I deal with this?

A: We discourage the use of external links, but sometimes the most convenient way to share suplementary material such as code or datasets is to include a link to a github repository or a google drive, but it is very important that they are fully anonymized. In particular, a link to your working code repository that exposes the identities of the contributors will be in violation of the double blind policy.

The same holds for online demos; reviewers should be able to visit the online demo and potentially browse its source code without being exposed to the identity of the authors (watch out for copyright statements, for example).

You should keep in mind that reviewers are under no obligation to review any supplementary material, including externally linked data or code, and reviewers may chose not to visit any externally linked material.

Needless to say, attempting to discover the reviewers for your paper by tracking visitors to a public repository or an online demo would constitute a breach of academic integrity.

Q: I am building on my own past work on the WizWoz system. Do I need to rename this system in my paper for purposes of anonymity, so as to remove the implied connection between my authorship of past work on this system and my present submission?

A: No. The relationship between systems and authors changes over time, so there will be at least some doubt about authorship. Increasing this doubt by changing the system name would help with anonymity, but it would compromise the research process. In particular, changing the name requires explaining a lot about the system again because you can’t just refer to the existing papers, which use the proper name. Not citing these papers runs the risk of the reviewers who know about the existing system thinking you are replicating earlier work. It is also confusing for the reviewers to read about the paper under Name X and then have the name be changed to Name Y. Will all the reviewers go and re-read the final version with the correct name? If not, they have the wrong name in their heads, which could be harmful in the long run.

Q: I am submitting a paper that extends my own work that previously appeared at a workshop. Should I anonymize any reference to that prior work?

A: If the previous workshop publication resulted in a published paper, then your ECOOP submission will be judged on the significance of its delta with respect to that earlier paper. In that case, you should definitely cite the earlier paper as you would any other paper (i.e., in the third person, not revealing that you were the author of the earlier paper) and explain the delta. If, on the other hand, the work presented at an earlier workshop was not accompanied by a proper publication (e.g., if it was just a talk), then your ECOOP submission may very well have significant overlap with it and citing the workshop work would effectively unblind your paper. In such a case, it is not necessary to cite the earlier presentation. Instead, please mention it in the “Confidential Comments for the Program Chairs” field of the HotCRP form so that the Program Chairs are aware of the situation. When in doubt, ask the Program Chairs for guidance.

Q: I want to cite some related work that itself cites an earlier version of my paper/system that appeared previously online. But that would effectively unblind my submission. What do I do?

A: It is difficult to give a general answer to this question. Ask the Program Chairs for guidance.

Q: My submission presents a technique that I employed in the development of previous papers but which was never properly described in those papers. If I mention that my technique was used in those previous papers, I am effectively unblinding my submission, but if I don’t mention it, reviewers may think I am ripping off my own prior work. What do I do?

A: It is difficult to give a general answer to this question. Ask the Program Chairs for guidance.

Q: Am I allowed to post my (non-blinded) paper on my web page? Can I advertise the unblinded version of my paper on mailing lists or send it to colleagues? Can I give a talk about my work while it is under review? How do I handle social media? What about arXiv?

A: We have developed guidelines, described here, to help everyone navigate in the same way the tension between (1) the normal communication of scientific results, which double-blind reviewing should not impede, and (2) actions that essentially force potential reviewers to learn the identity of the authors for a submission. Roughly speaking, you may (of course!) discuss work under submission, but you should not broadly advertise your work through media that is likely to reach your reviewers. We acknowledge there are grey areas and trade-offs; we cannot describe every possible scenario.

Things you may do:

• Submit your paper to ECOOP, even if a previous version of it – under the same title or a different title – has been presented at an informal workshop, published on arXiv, or submitted to a previous conference or workshop.
• Post your submission on your home page, your institutional repository, or arXiv, before or after the deadline (under whatever title you want).
• Discuss your work with anyone who is not on the PC, or with PC members with whom you already have a conflict.
• Present your work at professional meetings, informal workshops, or job interviews during the ECOOP review period.

The above is not an exhaustive list: when in doubt, ask the Program Chairs.

Things you should not do:

• Contact PC members (with whom you are not conflicted) about your work.
• Publicize your work on major mailing lists used by the community (because potential reviewers likely read these lists).
• Publicize your work on social media if wide public [re-]propagation is common (e.g., Twitter) and therefore likely to reach potential reviewers. For example, on Facebook, a post with a broad privacy setting (public or all friends) saying, “Whew, ECOOP paper in, time to sleep” is okay, but one describing the work or giving its title is not appropriate. Alternately, a post to a group including only the colleagues at your institution is fine.

Reviewers will not be asked to recuse themselves from reviewing your paper unless they feel you have gone out of your way to advertise your authorship information to them. If you are unsure about what constitutes “going out of your way”, please contact the Program Chairs.

Q: Will the fact that ECOOP is double-blind have an impact on handling conflicts-of-interest?

A: Double-blind reviewing does not change the principle that reviewers should not review papers with which they have a conflict of interest, even if they do not immediately know who the authors are. Authors declare conflicts of interest when submitting their papers using the guidelines in the call for papers. Papers will not be assigned to reviewers who have a conflict.

For reviewers

Q: What should I do if I learn the authors’ identity? What should I do if a prospective ECOOP author contacts me and asks to visit my institution?

A: You should not treat double-blind reviewing differently from other reviewing. In particular, as explained above, it is fine for authors to give talks about their work (at workshops, job interviews, etc.), they cannot control who will attend their talks, and you as a PC member should not feel that you are prevented from attending their talks. Knowing (for whatever reason) that a paper was written by a certain author does not prevent you from reviewing the paper.

That said, if you feel that the authors’ actions are in flagrant violation of double-blind review, that is a point of concern. For example, if an author e-mails you their brand new ECOOP submission and asks to visit your institution to discuss it, that would clearly not be appropriate. There is a grey zone here, so use your best judgment, and when in doubt, ask the Program Chairs how to proceed.

Q: The authors have provided a URL to supplemental material. I would like to see the material but I worry they will snoop my IP address and learn my identity. What should I do?

A: You are under no obligation to follow any URLs to external supplementary material. If the submission is not self contained and does not convince you by itself about its merits, then the paper should not be accepted. If you ever have reason to suspect that your anonymity was compromised through your following of a link, please share that information with the Program Chairs immediately, as this would constitute a breach of academic integrity on the part of the authors.

Q: How do we handle potential conflicts of interest since I cannot see the author names?

A: The conference review system will ask that you identify conflicts of interest when you get an account on the submission system. It is critical that you enter these at least a week before the ECOOP submission deadline. Feel free to also identify additional authors whose papers you feel you could not review fairly for reasons other than those given (e.g., strong personal friendship).

Q: How should I avoid learning the authors’ identity if I am using web-search in the process of performing my review?

A: You should make a good-faith effort not to find the authors’ identity during the review period, but if you inadvertently do so, this does not disqualify you from reviewing the paper. As part of the good-faith effort, avoid using search engines with terms like the paper’s title or the name of a new system being discussed.