ieeesp-review-process
GitHub解析IEEE S&P会议审稿流程，涵盖周期内轮次、早期拒稿、反驳机制及接受/修改/拒绝决策。说明伦理委员会审查、录用后的Shepherding要求及一年重新投稿禁令，指导作者优化策略。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ieeesp-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ieeesp-review-process",
"description": "Use when reasoning about IEEE S&P (Oakland) peer review, including the rounds inside each cycle, early-reject notices, the rebuttal for second-round papers, the Accept\/Revise\/Reject decision set, the Research Ethics Committee, shepherding of accepted papers, and the one-year resubmission embargo."
}
IEEE S&P Review Process
Use this to model what happens to an S&P submission after upload and where author effort still moves the outcome. The structural constant across recent cycles is a round structure inside each cycle ending in a three-way decision; the dates below are the verified Cycle 2 timetable for S&P 2027 (sp2027.ieee-security.org/cfpapers.html, checked 2026-07-08).
Rounds inside a cycle
| Stage | 2027 Cycle 2 date | What actually happens |
|---|---|---|
| Submission closes | Nov 17, 2026 | Record frozen; REC screening begins where flagged |
| First round | — | A subset of the PC reads; weakest papers cut |
| Early-reject notice | Jan 18, 2027 | Cut papers exit without rebuttal |
| Reviews released | Feb 11, 2027 | Surviving papers see full reviews |
| Rebuttal due | Feb 16, 2027 | ~5 days; second-round papers only |
| Decision | Mar 5, 2027 | Accept / Revise / Reject |
The asymmetry to plan around: first-round papers never get to answer their
reviewers. The introduction, threat model, and evaluation summary must
survive a skeptical first read on their own — that is why ieeesp-writing-style
front-loads the adversary and the evidence map.
The three-way decision, and why Revise is the signature
- Accept comes with a draft meta-review listing remaining concerns and a shepherd who strikes each concern once the camera-ready resolves it — acceptance at S&P is conditional in substance even when not in name.
- Revise invites a limited set of papers to submit a structured major revision against a written summary of expectations, re-reviewed (ideally by the same reviewers). It is the venue's mechanism for "the contribution is real, the evidence is not finished." Which later cycle a Revise resubmits into is cycle-specific — 待核实 on the live pages every time.
- Reject starts the one-year embargo from the original submission date; a future submission with roughly ≥40% overlap counts as a resubmission.
Treat a Revise as the best non-accept outcome in security publishing: the expectations document is a contract. Deliver exactly what it lists, map each expectation to a change, and do not use the revision to add unrequested new material that reopens settled questions.
The Research Ethics Committee is a separate track
S&P registers an Ethics Considerations entry for every paper at submission time, and papers raising concerns are routed to a Research Ethics Committee that can recommend rejection on ethical grounds regardless of technical merit. The named baseline is the Menlo Report. Reviewers also expect IRB approval/waiver status disclosed where human subjects or user data are involved, and harm-mitigation discussion whenever PII is touched. The REC evaluates what you did — disclosure sent, data minimized, approvals obtained — months before submission; nothing written during review can substitute for actions not taken.
Where author leverage lives
Leverage map (S&P cycle):
Before registration ████████ abstract routes reviewers; ethics record set
First round ─ none: paper speaks alone; no rebuttal if cut
Rebuttal window ████ high on misreadings, moderate on evidence gaps
(5 days: pre-draft the likely objections)
Reviewer discussion ─ only via the rebuttal already filed
Revise window ██████ a written contract you can fully satisfy
Camera-ready ███ shepherd negotiation over concrete concerns
Reading reviews from this PC
The S&P pool reads adversarially by profession. Expect objections shaped as:
"the adaptive attacker breaks this defense," "the threat model assumes
capabilities that make the attack uninteresting," "the measurement sample is
biased toward ieeesp-author-response).
Process misfires
- A review that misstates the paper's mechanism is rebuttal material: quote the submission with section numbers, without heat.
- Ethics allegations are answered with documentation (dates, approval IDs, disclosure timelines), never with indignation.
- Suspected reviewer misconduct goes privately to the PC chairs.
- After a final Reject there is no appeal track; the embargo clock and a sibling venue are the real options.
Output format
[Stage] pre-submission / round 1 / rebuttal / decision wait / revise / shepherding
[Next transition] <date from current cycle pages> (待核实 if unverified)
[Survival read] early-reject risk: low / med / high (why)
[Objection forecast] claim: <..> · evidence: <..> · ethics: <..>
[If Revise] expectations doc summarized? resubmission cycle confirmed?
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 16:00
