Below you'll find helpful information, guidelines and templates for submitting synopses or full technical papers.
Guidelines and Templates
How your full paper will be handled by IBC:
(a) Upon receipt, your full paper will be reviewed by the same five specialists who refereed your original synopsis and their comments will subsequently be considered by the full Technical Papers Committee (20 media technology experts). They will either: accept your paper as submitted (the fate of ~35% of papers); provide suggestions for its modification to make it acceptable (~60% of papers); or reject your paper (~4% of papers).
(b) You will receive notification of the decision on your paper by the week commencing 10th July. Authors whose papers require modification will be given time to make the changes. Papers containing minor errors or imperfect use of English will be corrected by IBC.
(c) All papers which are accepted will be published in the Conference Proceedings, which is an internationally citable reference work. They will also be listed in the Conference Programme and their authors will receive complimentary registration for the Conference. Most of these papers (~80%) will be given presentation slots in the Conference sessions.
We do try to provide as many speaking opportunities as possible in the sessions but we are unable to include all the accepted papers. The most common reason for not being able to provide a speaking slot is that two papers destined for a particular session turn out to have content which is too similar. Sometimes, papers will deal with very fine detail (for example bit-specification in digital standards); we feel that although these papers are worthy, their verbal presentation may not appeal to a general technical audience. [Note that we DO encourage the use of relevant mathematics, which adds to the precision and understanding of technical work - we would not deny a verbal presentation on the grounds of mathematical content]. Finally, and very occasionally, authors fail to deliver their promised full papers. At a late stage this can be very disruptive, requiring us to reorganise whole sessions and, in the wake of such change, presentation slots can be lost.
Papers which are not verbally presented are assigned to sessions as 'supporting papers' and these will be mentioned in the session by the session chair. If their authors are present in the room, the chair will direct any questions about their paper to them. Supporting papers are given exactly the same status in the Conference Proceedings as those which are verbally presented.
IBC Copyright Agreement - essential to complete
Please email firstname.lastname@example.org if you have not received the DocuSign link to the IBC Copyright Agreement form.
Please complete and sign the form no later than Monday 6 May 2019.
Please consider the following
Substantially New Paper: Proposals which have already been published or presented elsewhere will not be accepted.
Written in English: Proposals must be written in English language. It’s a good idea to prepare your text off-line in a Word document before cutting and pasting it into the website template.
Good Spoken English: Should your paper be selected for inclusion and presentation, the delivering speaker must be sufficiently proficient in verbal English language, to answer questions from the audience.
Clear and Concise: Describe the advance or concept that will be the key topic of your paper or poster highlighting what is unique, showing how it will improve existing systems or practices and explaining its background.
Length: Synopses should typically be no more than 300 words in length.
Historical Papers: Offers of reviews or historical papers will only be accepted if they draw strong and relevant conclusions about future directions.
Include Results: If the proposal describes experimental work, mention what the results (or anticipated results) show and explain what the impact might be.
No Sales Pitches: Products or service pitches will not be accepted, however contributions explaining the use of technology in products or services may be considered.
Demonstrations: If you intend to use tools such as simulations, demonstrations or 3D graphics to help an audience understand your presentation then please say so.
The best synopses will promise a paper containing
- A problem that the work aims to solve
- Background to the work
- Novel ideas
- Mathematical theory
- Performance results (preferably numerical)
- Economic arguments
- Simulation results
- The carrying-out of trials
- Relevant performance comparisons
- A design approach or evolution
- Improved efficiency or cost-reduction
- A case study and conclusions
- It may also offer an entertaining/ informative conference presentation (graphics, simulations, demonstrations, etc)
Example of a well written synopsis
Title: WiB – Lower cost and higher performance for DTT using wideband 1-reuse
Description: Current frequency planning of DTT is based on frequency reuse (also with SFNs). On a particular transmission site only a fraction of the available spectrum is actually used, which unfortunately is far from power efficient. The paper will present a new DTT system approach, where potentially all frequencies within the UHF band are used on all TX sites (reuse factor one). Interference is handled by a combination of a robust transmission mode, the directional discrimination of the receiving antenna (roof-top reception) and interference cancellation methods. This approach allows for a fundamental power saving of about 90% for the same coverage and total capacity (about 200 Mbps per site within 470-694 MHz) as with a “roof-top DVB-T2-only case”.
In addition, high speed mobile reception as well as local services would be supported, without loss of capacity. With this approach DTT may be transmitted as a single wideband signal from a single wideband transmitter (per TX site), allowing RF combiners to be avoided. The system may also more easily allow positioning of the TX at the top of the mast, thereby also eliminating the need of the long RF feeder. A large reduction of CAPEX and OPEX for DTT is expected thanks to a range of factors, which will be presented in the paper. TFS frequency hopping would allow the receiver to use a smaller tuner bandwidth to extract a selected service, while keeping the full UHF band frequency diversity and statmux efficiency advantage. Unlike earlier MIMO proposals for DTT this approach would also allow MIMO to be introduced in a backward-compatible way with respect to existing antenna installations, using independently modulated streams, thereby doubling the total capacity. The paper will also include performance simulation results related to e.g. interference cancellation and coverage.