usenixsec-review-process

USENIX Security Review Process

USENIX Security reviews in two annual cycles, each a self-contained pipeline from

registration to notification. The '26 cycle mechanics below were read from

usenix.org pages on 2026-07-08 (via search renderings; direct fetch 403'd), with

the '25 reviewing-model page as documented history. The '27 mechanics under chairs

Adam Doupé (Arizona State) and Andrei Sabelfeld (Chalmers) are only partially

posted — treat everything here as one venue-generation's snapshot.

The cycle pipeline, with '26 dates as the worked example

| Stage | Cycle 1 ('26) | Cycle 2 ('26) | What is happening |

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

| Registration | Aug 19, 2025 | Jan 29, 2026 | HotCRP record frozen; bidding data set |

| Submission | Aug 26, 2025 | Feb 5, 2026 | Format/policy screening begins |

| Early reject | Oct 7, 2025 | Mar 17, 2026 | Bottom of the pool exits after first-round reads |

| Final notification | Dec 4, 2025 | May 14, 2026 | Accept / shepherd-approval / reject |

| Finals due | Jan 15, 2026 | Jun 11, 2026 | Shepherding + Phase-1 AE complete |

The '25 model (last fully published) shows the shape inside those windows: two

first-round reviews; online discussion; survivors gain two more reviews in round

two; authors respond; the committee discusses to a decision. Expect roughly that

structure until the current cycle's reviewing-model page says otherwise (待核实

for '27).

The decision vocabulary changed — don't plan on 2025 rules

Through '25, USENIX Security ran an Accept / Invited Major Revision / Reject

scheme, where a major revision returned to the same reviewers in a later cycle.

The '26 CFP retired major revisions. The current outcomes:

• Accept — proceed to camera-ready and mandatory artifact-availability check.
• Accepted on Shepherd Approval — the committee wants the paper conditional on

changes a two-week shepherding pass can hold: clarifications, explicit

limitations, calibrated claims. Not a lane for new experiments.

• Early reject / reject — out of the cycle. Whether and when the work may

return is governed by per-year resubmission restrictions; the '26 CFP delegated

restrictions on its Cycle-2 rejects to the '27 chairs. **Always check the

current restriction text before queuing a resubmission** — this is the venue's

most frequently misremembered rule.

Strategic consequence: the paper must be finished at submission. The old

major-revision safety net — submit at 85% and repair through revision — no longer

exists; its replacement (shepherding) fixes prose, not evidence.

What reviewers here weigh

Beyond ordinary top-venue novelty/rigor screens, this committee applies filters

that surprise authors from adjacent fields:

1. Ethics adequacy is a gate, not a score. Weak Ethical Considerations content

can trigger required revisions mid-review or sink the paper regardless of

technique (the ethics guidelines page is explicit that expectations bind).

1. Threat-model realism. An attack needing implausible attacker position, or a

defense evaluated only against non-adaptive adversaries, loses reviewers who

ask "who does this actually affect?"

1. Openness posture. Since the Open Science policy, a vague availability story

is a review-visible weakness, not a post-acceptance detail.

1. Measurement validity. Vantage-point, time-window, and ground-truth

skepticism is a house specialty.

Reading each email

Early reject      → 4 reviews were not spent on you; the pool's bottom tier.
                    Diagnose fit and framing, not just polish. Consider
                    usenixsec-topic-selection before re-targeting.
Reject (final)    → full reviews attached; mine them for the resubmission and
                    check the current cross-cycle restriction before re-queuing.
Shepherd approval → acceptance-in-waiting; scope the change list within 48h
                    (see usenixsec-author-response).
Accept            → the artifact clock is already running
                    (see usenixsec-camera-ready).

Confidentiality and conduct

Submissions are confidential to the committee; reviewer identities are hidden;

contacting reviewers or attempting to identify them is out of bounds. Conflicts

declared at registration drive assignment — fabricating conflicts to dodge a

skeptical expert is chair-level misconduct at USENIX as elsewhere.

Reverify each cycle

• The current reviewing-model description, response phase, and round structure.
• Decision categories and shepherding window ('27 待核实).
• Resubmission restrictions between cycles and across years.
• Early-reject and notification dates for the live cycle.

Output format

[Cycle position] stage now + next date that matters
[Decision model] outcomes in force this cycle (verified on: <date>)
[Exposure] ethics gate / threat-model realism / openness / measurement validity
[Plan] action per possible outcome, with resubmission-restriction check