usenixsec-author-response

USENIX Security Author Response

USENIX Security gives authors two distinct speaking moments, and they obey different

rules: the mid-review response to reviewers, and the post-decision exchange with a

shepherd. This skill covers both. Mechanics shift per cycle — the '25 model was

documented in detail on the reviewing-model page, the '26 model partially, and the

'27 mechanics are 待核实 — so confirm the current instructions in HotCRP before

drafting.

Where the response sits in the pipeline

In the '25 model (the last fully documented one): two reviews in round one; papers

survive to round two if at least one reviewer sees a path to acceptance after online

discussion; round two adds two more reviews; then authors respond; reviewers

discuss again and decide. Two consequences follow:

• By the time you respond, four reviewers have read the paper but the committee has

not settled. The response's real audience is the discussion that follows it.

• Papers cut at the early-reject notification never get a response window at all.

There is no appeal lane inside the cycle; the recovery move is a revised

resubmission (see usenixsec-review-process for the restriction rules).

One more '25-documented pattern worth planning for: submissions with inadequate

ethics discussions were flagged during review, and authors were required to

supply revised ethics content in the response phase. Treat an ethics question in a

review as a compliance demand, not an opinion to debate.

Sorting the reviews before writing

| Objection type | What it usually means at this venue | Response move |

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

| Threat model unrealistic | Reviewer rejects the attacker capabilities | Defend with deployment evidence, or narrow the claim explicitly |

| Ethics gap / disclosure question | Compliance flag, possibly chair-visible | Answer completely; state disclosure timeline and vendor contact status |

| Evaluation missing an adaptive attacker | Defense papers' most common kill | Present the adaptive experiment if it exists; commit precisely if it fits shepherding scope |

| Overlap with concurrent work | Cycle collision, common with two cycles/year | Date the overlap, differentiate mechanism and evidence |

| "Measurement may be artifact of vantage point" | Methodology doubt | Show cross-vantage or cross-time consistency numbers |

Answer the compliance-shaped items first and fully; a brilliant technical rebuttal

does not offset an unanswered disclosure question.

Drafting rules that fit this venue

• Number every point and quote the review fragment being answered; the discussion

phase skims, and unanchored prose gets skipped.

• Give evidence that already exists (a table row, an appendix reference, a number)

priority over promises. Since '26 the largest change a paper can absorb after

decision is a two-week shepherding pass — never promise revisions bigger than

that window can hold.

• Keep anonymity discipline: no identifying links, no "in our lab" phrasing.
• If a reviewer misread, demonstrate the misreading with a page/section pointer and

move on without scoring the point.

# Response skeleton (per review point)
[R2.3] "the scanner may overload targets"
  Facts: Section 5.2 caps probe rate at 1 req/s/host; opt-out honored within 24h
         (Appendix: Ethical Considerations, para 2).
  Change offered: none needed — pointer only.

[R1.4] "no adaptive attacker"
  Facts: new experiment, gradient-aware evader, detection drops 94%→81% (table below).
  Change offered: add as Sec 6.4 (~0.5 page); fits shepherding scope.

After the decision: shepherd mode

"Accepted on Shepherd Approval" (the '26 outcome replacing major revisions) means

the committee wants the paper but conditions publication on named changes —

clarifications, limitation discussions, toned-down claims — that are unlikely to

change enthusiasm. Working rules:

1. Convert the decision letter into a change matrix (request → edit → location) and

send it to the shepherd before editing, so scope is agreed once.

1. Deliver inside the two-week window; the shepherd's sign-off is the acceptance.
2. Do not smuggle in new results the committee never reviewed; flag anything beyond

the requested list explicitly and let the shepherd rule on it.

1. Track every edit against the camera-ready deadline for your cycle — shepherding

and final-paper preparation overlap (see usenixsec-camera-ready).

Reverify each cycle

• Whether the current cycle includes an author response phase at all, its length,

and its format (HotCRP field vs PDF) — '27 values 待核实.

• The shepherding window length and whether "Accepted on Shepherd Approval" remains

the intermediate outcome.

• Any word/character limit on responses.

Output format

[Phase] mid-review response / shepherd exchange
[Compliance items] ethics or disclosure questions + answers drafted: yes/no
[Point map] review point → evidence → offered change (within shepherding scope?)
[Risk] points conceded or narrowed, and the wording
[Next deadline] response or shepherd deadline, camera-ready implications