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