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?