sensys-review-process

SenSys Review Process

SenSys does not run a single annual verdict. It runs **two submission deadlines per cycle, each

a self-contained review round, and the connective tissue between them is a resubmission

rule: a paper rejected at one deadline may re-enter at the next only with a substantive

revision and a "Response to Reviewers"** that maps each concern to a specific change. Reading

your notification correctly means knowing which move the process is offering you.

The outcome space

| Outcome | What it means | Your move |

|---|---|---|

| Accept | The paper is in the edition the deadline feeds | sensys-artifact-evaluation + sensys-camera-ready |

| Reject | Not accepted at this deadline | Decide whether to resubmit with revision at the next deadline, or route elsewhere |

| Resubmit with revision (next deadline) | The path the two-deadline model offers, not an automatic invitation | Treat the reviews as the required-changes list; see sensys-author-response |

Note that whether a given cycle also offers an explicit **major-revision channel at

notification (distinct from the first→second deadline resubmission) is 待核实** — read the

current CFP; do not assume a rebuttal or revision stage that the edition does not run.

What SenSys reviewers weigh

SenSys reviewers are systems people who have built and deployed. They read for:

• Is it built and measured? Simulation-only or single-run results draw immediate skepticism.
• Is the energy real? Adjectives ("low-power") where a measurement belongs are flagged.
• Is the ground truth honest? Accuracy against an unstated or uncalibrated reference is a

standard objection.

• Is the baseline fair? Cross-hardware or untuned comparisons undercut the headline.
• Does the design understand its space? Rejected alternatives and named limitations signal

competence; their absence signals under-evaluation.

Knowing this lets you predict the review themes before they arrive and pre-empt them in the paper

(sensys-experiments, sensys-writing-style).

Classifying a notification before you respond

Read every review and sort each point:
  [Blocking]  a claim the reviewer does not believe without new measurement
  [Fixable]   a gap addressable by a bench run or a clearer figure
  [Framing]   a misread you can prevent with rewriting, no new data
  [Wishlist]  a nice-to-have outside the paper's scope

Then decide:
  Accept        → move to camera-ready + artifacts
  Resubmit      → is the blocking set closable by the next deadline given testbed time?
  Route away    → if the blocking set needs a redesign, a different venue may be faster

The decision to resubmit is a calendar-and-testbed decision as much as a scientific one: a

blocking reviewer objection that requires a new energy-harvesting deployment cannot be answered

in two weeks. sensys-workflow holds the backward schedule.

Confidentiality and conduct

Reviews are confidential; do not circulate them or identify reviewers, and do not attempt to

de-anonymize. Concerns about a review's fairness or a conflict go to the chairs through the

process, not into the response text. The exact conduct and appeal wording for the cycle is

待核实 — read the current pages.

Reviewer continuity across deadlines

Because a resubmission returns to the venue with its prior reviews attached, assume **some

continuity** of reviewer context between deadlines: the response-to-reviewers is read against

what was promised. This makes the response a contract (see sensys-author-response), not a

debate — every promised change must appear in the revised paper.

Output format

[Outcome]  accept / reject / resubmit-with-revision — as the notification states
[Blocking] the points that must be answered with new measurement, listed
[Feasible] can the blocking set close by the next deadline given testbed time? Y/N
[Path]     resubmit here / route elsewhere / proceed to camera-ready
[Open]     any process ambiguity (major-revision channel? appeal?) marked 待核实