Submission
Contributions should be submitted electronically via Easychair.
General Rules
Both theoretical and applied research papers are welcome.
All papers must be written in English. Submitted papers must not substantially overlap with papers that have been published or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or a conference with published proceedings. Failure to clearly identify any duplication or overlap with other papers is ground for rejection without full review.
Paper Format and Instruction for Authors
Submissions are anonymous. Papers must be submitted to the submission web site.
We accept (a) Full Papers; (b) Position Papers; (c) Work in Progress.
Full Papers shall not exceed 10 pages of body text, with unlimited additional pages for references and appendices. Position Papers and Work in Progress should be at most 6 pages long, excluding the bibliography and well-marked appendices. They must have at the beginning of the paper's title the words "Position Paper:" or "Work in Progress:", respectively. Reviewers are explicitly not expected to read the appendices while deciding whether to accept or reject the paper.
Papers must be typeset in LaTeX in A4 format (not "US Letter") using the IEEE conference proceeding template avaiable here eurosp2023-template.zip Please do not use other IEEE templates.
Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (.pdf). Authors should pay special attention to unusual fonts, images, and figures that might create problems for reviewers. Your document should render correctly in Adobe Reader XI and when printed in black and white.
Failure to adhere to the page limit and formatting requirements can be grounds for rejection without review.
Review Policy and Conflict of Interest
Papers will be reviewed by at least three PC members. The authors can declare conflicts of interest with PC members at the moment of submission or by informing the PC chairs or the organizers.
Paper will be judged on novelty, technical soundness/social scientific content, comparison to related work, validation aspects.
STAST adopts a double blind review policy.
Accepted Papers and Attendance Policy
At least one author of each accepted paper is required to attend the workshop to present the work. Otherwise, the paper will be excluded from the proceedings.
Structured Reporting
We encourage authors to include well-defined sections on methods, results, and discussion. We ask to describe all limitations the authors are aware of.
We strongly encourage authors to provide pre-workshop PDF and Easychair submission with a structured abstract. A structured abstract is a concise sign-posted description of a study's 1. background, 2. aim, 3. methods, 4. results and 5. conclusions.
Consider this structured abstract adapted from STAST 2018 as an example:
- Background. 3-D Secure 2.0 (3DS 2.0) is an identity federation protocol authenticating the payment initiator for credit card transactions on the Web.
- Aim. Models of user behaviour and user interactions with technology. We aim to quantify the impact of factors used by 3DS 2.0 in its fraud-detection decision making process. Perceptions of related risk, as well as their influence on humans
- Method. We ran N=64 credit card transactions with two Web sites systematically manipulating the nominal IVs machine_data, value, region, and website. We measured whether the user was challenged with an authentication, whether the transaction was declined, and whether the card was blocked as nominal DVs. We established three logistic regression models to quantify the impact of the predictors on the likelihood of the transaction outcomes.
- Results. A change in machine_data, region or value made it 5-7 times as likely to be challenged with password authentication. However, even in a foreign region with another factor being changed, the overall likelihood of being challenged only reached 60%. When in the card's home region, a transaction will be rarely declined (< 5% in control, 40% with one factor changed). However, in a region foreign to the card the system will more likely decline transactions anyway (about 60%) and any change in machine_data or value will lead to a near-certain declined transaction.
- Conclusions. We found that the decisions to challenge the user with a password authentication, to decline a transaction and to block a card are governed by different weightings. 3DS 2.0 is most likely to decline transactions, especially in a foreign region. It is less likely to challenge users with password authentication, even if machine_data or value are changed.
Consider submitting supplementary documentation and study materials (e.g., questionnaires, code books) in the appendix or the pre-registration repository.