ieeesp-review-process

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 <population>," "the ethics section does not say who approved

this." Classify each review point by whether it disputes the claim, the

evidence, or the ethics record — the three need different responses

(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?