Usenixsec review process

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/USENIX-Security-Skills/skills/usenixsec-review-process

Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。

Install

npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill usenixsec-review-process

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when reasoning about how a USENIX Security Symposium cycle actually decides — early-reject notifications, multi-round reviewing, the retirement of Major Revision in favor of shepherd-approval acceptances, resubmission restrictions between cycles, and what each notification email means for planning.

SKILL.md

5.3 KB, ~1.1k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

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:

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).
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?"
Openness posture. Since the Open Science policy, a vague availability story is a review-visible weakness, not a post-acceptance detail.
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