SIGMOD Berlin, Germany, 2025


Berlin, Germany, 2025,

ACM SIGMOD is a leading international forum for data management research. Through the conference, participants will explore cutting edge ideas and results, and exchange techniques, tools and experiences.

Major Changes from Prior Years

Please make note of the following changes well before you submit your paper:


  1. Topics
  2. Dates
  3. Dissemination
  4. Presentation
  5. Review Process
  6. Submission Guidelines


We invite submissions in the following topics:

Data Management Systems

Models and Languages

Human-Centric Data Management

Data Governance

Modern AI & Data Management

Data-Driven Applications


All deadlines are 11:59 PM AoE. Subscribe to the dates calendar here.

Round 1
Weds, Jan 10, 2024, Abstract Submission and Declaration of COIs
Weds, Jan 17, 2024, Paper Submission
Thurs, Feb 29, 2024, Notification of Accept/Review/Reject
Thurs, Mar 7, 2024, Submission of Revision Plan
Thurs, Mar 21, 2024, Revision Feedback
Thurs, May 2, 2024, Final Notification

Round 2
Weds, Apr 10, 2024, Abstract Submission and Declaration of COIs
Weds, Apr 17, 2024, Paper Submission
Thurs, May 30, 2024, Notification of Accept/Review/Reject
Thurs, Jun 6, 2024, Submission of Revision Plan
Thurs, Jun 20, 2024, Revision Feedback
Thurs, Aug 1, 2024, Final Notification

Round 3
Weds, Jul 10, 2024, Abstract Submission and Declaration of COIs
Weds, Jul 17, 2024, Paper Submission
Thurs, Aug 29, 2024, Notification of Accept/Review/Reject
Thurs, Sep 5, 2024, Submission of Revision Plan
Thurs, Sep 19, 2024, Revision Feedback
Thurs, Oct 31, 2024, Final Notification

Round 4
Thurs, Oct 10, 2024, Abstract Submission and Declaration of COIs
Thurs, Oct 17, 2024, Paper Submission
Thurs, Nov 28, 2024, Notification of Accept/Review/Reject
Thurs, Dec 5, 2024, Submission of Revision Plan
Thurs, Dec 19, 2024, Revision Feedback
Thurs, Jan 30, 2025, Final Notification


The rights of all ACM published authors are detailed at:

All accepted papers will also appear in a timely manner in an archival journal: Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data (PACMMOD) at


Authors of accepted publications will be assigned a time to present a poster of their work at the poster plenaries in the conference. All papers are strongly encouraged to present a poster at these plenaries.

The number of SIGMOD submissions has been growing steadily over many years. To accommodate publication growth while maintaining an engaging and communal in-person conference, SIGMOD 2025 will randomly select a subset of accepted papers for presentation at the conference. Authors of randomly selected papers will be invited to present their paper in a speaking slot at the conference.

A random sample of papers ensures a fair selection process, reflects the main themes of the pool of accepted papers, and maintains the principle that all papers regardless of presentation selection are of full SIGMOD quality.


Each submission will receive three reviews.
In response to community feedback, there will be no author feedback this year. Moreover, unlike past years, all papers will receive an initial Accept or Reject decision upon completion of reviews. In lieu of the revision requests from prior years, many accepted papers will be assigned a shepherd to guide authors through revisions. Final acceptance is contingent upon satisfying shepherding requests.


These are rough timelines that are subject to change.

Submission to Notification is 6 weeks

0Abstract Bidding & Reviewer Assignment
1Submission and Review
6Discussion, Shepherd Selection (for all accepted papers; usually main champion)

Notification to Final Submission is 9 weeks
Rejected papers cannot be submitted to SIGMOD until a full year has passed.

1Authors create and submit revision plan
2Shepherd reviews plan and submits feedback
3Shepherd reviews plan and submits feedback
4-8Authors revise and resubmit
9Shepherd, AE, Reviewers make final acceptance/rejection decision

Common revision requests can include

Revision requests must be reasonably achievable in time for resubmission, and 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.

One extra content page is allowed to accommodate the requested revision items. The revised submission should include a cover letter (up to 4 pages) to summarize how the authors have addressed the requested revisions.

In addition to the revised submission and cover letter, authors are encouraged to include a visual diff of the original and revised versions (e.g. via latexdiff or word processing tools that Track Changes).


Submission Link
Submission Paper length12 pages excluding references
AppendixNo Appendix
Camera Ready Paper length13 pages excluding references, no appendix
File type and sizePDF (<= 10 MB)
Paper sizeLetter (8.5” x 11”)
Format 2-column ACM Proceedings format:
AnonymityDouble-anonymity (see below)

Declaring Conflicts of Interest (COI)

It is the full responsibility of all authors of a paper to identify all and only their potential conflict-of-interest PC members.

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

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

1Short-term associations, such as summer internships do not constitute institutional COIs. E.g., a student who interned at Microsoft should declare as conflicts any individuals in the group they worked with and other collaborators on their projects, but they should not declare a domain conflict with

2Collaborations are indicated by prior co-authorships, shared grant funding, and close research relationships, even if those have not yet resulted in common publications. Publications (typically with a large set of authors) that fall outside the traditional sense of research collaborations (e.g., “The Seattle Report on Database Research”, “ Diversity and Inclusion Activities in Database Conferences: A 2021 Report”, etc.) do not in themselves constitute a COI.

To identify any potentially spurious conflicts, PC members may be asked to confirm declared conflicts with submitting authors.

Duplicate Submissions and Novelty Requirement
Following the ACM guidelines a research paper submitted to SIGMOD 2025 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 2025 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 2025 submission has overlap with a prior publication, the submission must cite the prior publication (respecting the double anonymity requirement), and clearly indicate which parts of the work appeared in prior publications and which parts are novel to the current submission.

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.

Policy on Research Involving Human Participants and Subjects
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.

Inclusion and Diversity in Writing
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.

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

Policy on Authorship Requirements
We follow the ACM policy on authorship requirements. Specifically on the use of generative AI tools and technologies, the guidelines note that: "Generative AI tools and technologies, such as ChatGPT, may not be listed as authors of an ACM published Work. The use of generative AI tools and technologies to create content is permitted but must be fully disclosed in the Work. For example, the authors could include the following statement in the Acknowledgements section of the Work: ChatGPT was utilized to generate sections of this Work, including text, tables, graphs, code, data, citations, etc.). If you are uncertain about the need to disclose the use of a particular tool, err on the side of caution, and include a disclosure in the acknowledgements section of the Work."

Anonymity Requirements for all submissions
Research track submissions are subject to the double-anonymity requirement.

To avoid compromising the double-anonymity requirement, we request that the authors refrain from publicizing and uploading versions of their submitted manuscripts to pre-publication servers, such as arXiv, and other online forums during the reviewing period. If a version of a submission already resides on a pre-publication server, such as arXiv, the authors do not need to remove it before submitting to SIGMOD.

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, you should still include all relevant work of your own in the references, using the above style; omitting them could potentially reveal your 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.

No exceptions will be made to the double anonymity requirement for Research Track papers. If the authors of a submission feel that double anonymity needs to be violated, for example to reveal the identity of a system, they may consider submission to a SIGMOD track that does not impose a double anonymity requirement, such as the Industry Track.

Artifacts and Reproducibility
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 all Research 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 one week 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.