Ipsn submission

IPSN Submission

Run this audit before uploading. IPSN research papers were double-blind, on the ACM Primary Article Template, ≤12 pages inclusive of everything, submitted through HotCRP — and split into the IP and SPOTS tracks. IPSN merged into SenSys (Embedded AI and Sensing Systems) from 2025-2026, so reopen the current SenSys call first: the numbers below are the IPSN 2024 (23rd, Hong Kong) snapshot read on 2026-07-09 (see resources/official-source-map.md) and the successor may differ (SenSys 2026 posted full 12 / short 6 pages).

Pick the track before the PDF

• IP track (Information Processing): algorithms, estimation, signal processing, inference, learning, localization. Reviewed by method reviewers who check soundness, baselines, and whether the information-processing claim holds.
• SPOTS track (Sensor Platforms, Tools and Design Methods): hardware, embedded software, tools, measurement, deployments. Reviewed for reusability, measured design trade-offs, and real-system evidence.

A mis-tracked paper draws the wrong reviewers and loses on the wrong axis. Confirm whether the successor keeps this split or uses a single track with categories (待核实).

Format and page budget

• ACM Primary Article Template, unmodified, two-column, 9 pt (IPSN 2024). This is a compact two-column budget — not FSE's generous single-column journal budget; do not carry that habit over.
• Page budget (verify per cycle): IPSN 2024 posted ≤12 pages inclusive of figures, tables, and references — there is no separate reference allowance. SenSys 2026 posted 12 (full) / 6 (short). Everything a reviewer must read to judge the paper lives inside the budget.
• Margins, font, and column layout are fixed by the template; editorial compression, not template tampering, recovers space.

Double-blind sweep (hardware papers leak in unusual places)

IPSN is double-blind. Sensor-systems papers leak identity through hardware and deployment artifacts more than software papers do:

# Mechanical pass on the submission PDF and any anonymized artifact archive
pdfinfo paper.pdf | grep -Ei 'author|creator|producer'
pdftotext paper.pdf - | grep -nEi 'github\.com/[a-z0-9-]+|gitlab|zenodo\.org/record|doi\.org|acknowledg|grant|university|@[a-z0-9.]+\.edu' | head
unzip -l artifact.zip | grep -Ei '\.git/|\.DS_Store|/home/|/Users/|firmware.*owner' | head

The IPSN-specific leaks to hunt by eye:

• Board photos and PCB silkscreen showing a lab logo, university name, or a distinctive bench.
• Oscilloscope / logic-analyzer screenshots with a captured hostname or lab watermark.
• Testbed and building names ("our 4th-floor CS testbed", a named bridge or campus) that identify the institution.
• Firmware repo owners, dataset DOIs, and IEEE DataPort links that resolve to an author.
• Deployment site coordinates or photos that pinpoint an author's city or institution.

Re-host datasets and firmware behind an anonymizing archive before upload, and blur or crop identifying hardware imagery.

Dataset and artifact at submission

• Provide an anonymized dataset/firmware link or archive, and state what will be released after acceptance. IPSN's artifact and Best Research Artifact culture makes a missing release story a scored weakness, not a neutral choice.
• Log energy/latency measurement conditions and ground truth now; these cannot be reconstructed at review time.

Desk-risk triage

Finding at audit time	Severity	Real fix
Main text over the page budget	Desk-reject-grade	Cut or move to the artifact; there is no separate reference allowance in the 12-page inclusive budget
Template altered (margins, shrunk font, single-column)	Named desk-reject ground	Recompile clean on the ACM template, recover space editorially
Identity leak in PDF, board photo, testbed name, or dataset link	Anonymity violation (desk-reject risk)	Re-anonymize imagery and re-host artifacts; scrub PDF metadata
Wrong track (platform paper in IP, or estimator in SPOTS)	Reviewer mismatch	Re-file under the matching track before the deadline
No dataset/firmware release story	Scored against the paper	Add an anonymized package + a release statement
Same work under review elsewhere	Dual-submission exposure	Withdraw one venue; verify the current concurrent-submission wording

Final-week order of operations

1. Confirm the live successor (SenSys) call, its deadline, and whether the track split survives.
2. Freeze the body early; measurements and figures can be re-plotted, the argument cannot.
3. Register title/abstract/authors/conflicts and pick the track before the cutoff.
4. Build the anonymized dataset/firmware package and place its link and release statement in the paper.
5. Run the mechanical anonymity checks on the final PDF and archive, plus an eyes-on pass over every board photo, scope screenshot, and testbed name.
6. Fill every HotCRP field — topic tags matching your track, conflicts for every coauthor's institution and recent collaborators — a day early.
7. Re-download the uploaded PDF and read it cold.

Reverify each cycle

• That the venue is the current SenSys edition at CPS-IoT Week (IPSN does not run standalone).
• Track structure (IP/SPOTS vs single track), the page budget, and the ACM template revision.
• Rebuttal mechanics, dual-submission wording, artifact/award timing, and any AI-disclosure rule — all cycle-volatile.

Output format

[IPSN/SenSys submission status] ready / blocked / needs work
[Track] IP / SPOTS (or successor category), matches the primary novelty? yes/no
[Format] pages used, ACM template compliance (two-column 9 pt)
[Anonymity] clean / leaks: <PDF metadata | board photo | testbed name | dataset link>
[Dataset/artifact] anonymized link present? release statement present?
[Fix queue] <ordered, with owners and dates before the AoE cutoff>