ecoCompute Science 2027 invites submissions on resource- and impact-aware computing. The event is held online in the European time zone in summer 2027.
This is not a research-only call. Submissions from companies, public bodies, open source projects and independent practitioners are as welcome as those from universities. If you have built or measured a tool, a product or a system that makes resource use or impact visible, or reduces it, you can show it here.
A submission consists of two pages and a tangible artifact, such as a running system or the design documents of a system. The reviewers work with the artifact itself.
Submission requirements
The two-page write-up
At most two pages, under five headings, in the following order:
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| The claim | What the work sets out to show. One or two sentences are sufficient. |
| The method | The setup, the measurement method, the hardware, and the number of runs. |
| The results | The measured values, with variance. State which property is expected to be stable and within what tolerance. |
| Prior work | What exists already, and what this work adds to it or contradicts. |
| Questions for discussion | The questions the authors wish to put to three discussion groups. |
Bullet points are acceptable throughout. Presentational quality is not a criterion for acceptance. The write-up is a guide to the artifact, not the evidence itself.
Every number in the write-up needs a source: an output of the artifact, the data included with it, a cited publication, or a stated assumption. The sources are listed in the artifact’s guide.
The artifact
A complete artifact that enables a reviewer to verify the claims without contacting the authors. It has to be something tangible that a reviewer can run, use or inspect. It need not be a script that regenerates every number. A tool, a running system, a dashboard, a notebook, a dataset together with the code that produced it, or the design documents of a system are all acceptable, provided the authors argue how the artifact supports the points made in the write-up. Data that cannot be published may be anonymised, provided the properties on which the claim depends are preserved. An archive file or a container image is sufficient. No hosting platform is required.
The Artifacts page sets out in detail what counts as an artifact, what the step-by-step guide must contain, how every number is traced to its source, and how specialised hardware, confidential data and measurement variance are handled. Authors are asked to read it before submitting.
One track, an artifact for every submission
There is a single track, and every submission includes an artifact. A claim that rests on nothing a reviewer can run, use or inspect is out of scope.
Work from companies goes through the same track and the same review. A product or an internal tool is a good artifact when reviewers can use it and check what the write-up says about it. Where data cannot leave the organisation, it may be anonymised as set out under Data that cannot be published. Where that is not possible either, the artifact can be something else that is tangible, for example the design of the system, the calculation behind the claimed effect, or the method applied to a public configuration. The claim is then limited to what that artifact supports.
Submissions we particularly encourage
- Negative results. An optimisation that did not yield a benefit, an effect that disappeared once noise was controlled for, or a tool that did not measure what it claimed to measure.
- Replication studies. An unsuccessful attempt to reproduce a published result is a full submission here.
- Methodology and accounting work. Proposals for accounting for oversubscription or effective utilisation are in scope. The artifact is then the method applied to sample configurations, which a reviewer can re-execute and verify.
- Tools, products, dashboards and measurement stacks, together with evidence that they perform as described.
- Experience from practice. What happened when an organisation measured, changed or replaced a system, including the parts that did not work.
Review
A dedicated artifact evaluation committee runs, uses or inspects the artifact of every submission. The opening days of the review period constitute a kick-the-tires phase: reviewers report any issue that prevents them from starting, and authors are given a short window in which to correct it. Artifacts should not fail on setup problems.
The review outcome and the artifact status are published together with the paper.
The process is set out in full on the Review and Publication page.
Publication
Publication proceeds in two stages:
- Stage one is the two-page write-up together with the artifact. It is reviewed, accepted and presented at the event.
- Stage two is a full paper, written after the event and shepherded by a committee member, who confirms that the claims do not exceed the evidence that was reviewed. The full paper receives a DOI.
Stage two is published in ECEASST, the Electronic Communications of the EASST. It is a diamond open access journal hosted by Berlin Universities Publishing, properly indexed, with no fee for authors or readers. ECEASST provides the submission and reviewing platform for the full papers through to publication. Anna-Lena Lamprecht is responsible for the publication track.
Important dates
| Submission opens | To be announced |
| Submission deadline | To be announced |
| Kick-the-tires window | To be announced |
| Notification | To be announced |
| Event | Summer 2027, online |
| Stage two full paper | After the event, shepherded |
Dates will be published on this page and announced on LinkedIn.
How to submit
The submission system is being set up. Until it is available, enquiries about a prospective submission, or requests to be notified when the system opens, may be sent to science@eco-compute.io.
Questions still under discussion
These questions are genuinely open and are stated here rather than presented as settled. Comments are welcome; please contact the organisers.
- How can artifact review be kept affordable? A cap on the number of submissions, rolling review, an arrangement in which one reviewer produces a working recipe that the others then follow, or AI assistance for the first reproduction pass. Most likely some combination of these.
- Single-blind or fully open review? Artifacts are difficult to anonymise reliably.
- How can non-attendance in capped discussion groups be avoided? Registration free of charge produces high rates of non-attendance. A nominal fee, a short written application, and an invitation model following the example of Dagstuhl are all under consideration.
- Who will serve on the programme and artifact committees? Expressions of interest in reviewing are welcome.