---

name: ipsn-review-process description: Use when reasoning about how an IPSN-lineage submission is evaluated, covering double-blind review, the per-track (IP / SPOTS) program committees, the rebuttal, Best Paper and Best Research Artifact judging, and how IPSN's process differs from SenSys's revision model, OpenReview venues, and CPS-IoT Week neighbors.

IPSN Review Process

Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. IPSN's process is double-blind, per-track, and conference-style (not journal-style): a submission is read by a program committee matched to its track — IP or SPOTS — and returns an accept/reject decision, usually with a rebuttal opportunity. Because IPSN merged into SenSys, confirm the successor's exact mechanics on the current call; the structure below is the IPSN-lineage model and what to expect.

Process model

• Submission and review run on HotCRP with double-blind anonymity: author identities are hidden from reviewers and reviewer identities from authors.
• Papers are matched to reviewers by track. An IP-track paper is read by method reviewers (estimation, signal processing, learning, localization); a SPOTS-track paper by platform/systems reviewers (hardware, embedded software, tools, deployment). This is why the track choice in ipsn-submission matters so much.
• Reviewers weigh: the soundness of the information-processing method or platform design; whether the evidence is real (real sensors, ground truth, measured energy/latency, honest deployment numbers); novelty against the sensing literature; and reproducibility / artifact support.
• A rebuttal typically lets authors correct factual misreadings before the decision (verify the window and format on the current call).
• Accepted papers appeared in both ACM DL and IEEE Xplore; the successor publishes regular papers in the ACM proceedings and demos/posters in the IEEE proceedings.

What each track's reviewers check first

Track	Reviewer's first question	Common reject trigger
IP	Is the estimator/inference sound, and is the baseline fair?	Simulation-only, or a proxy metric standing in for the real sensing outcome
SPOTS	Is the platform/tool reusable, and are the design trade-offs measured?	A one-off build with a datasheet but no measured power/robustness story
Either (deployment)	Are the real-world hardships reported honestly?	Yield, synchronization, and energy numbers missing or idealized

Reading a decision against the criteria

Signal in the reviews	What it means	Author move
"Only simulated / no real hardware"	Evidence-realism doubt (fatal at IPSN)	If possible add a real-sensor result in rebuttal; otherwise reroute
"Baseline is not a real alternative / untuned"	Soundness doubt	Add or justify a fair baseline; report the comparison
"Deployment numbers look idealized"	Honesty/realism doubt	Report yield, sync error, energy as measured, with limits
"Artifact would strengthen this"	Reproducibility gap	Commit to (and anonymize) a firmware+dataset artifact
"Wrong track / out of scope"	Track or venue mismatch	Hard to fix in rebuttal; a ipsn-topic-selection lesson for next time

How IPSN differs from its neighbors and successor

• vs. SenSys (pre-merger): SenSys is the sibling embedded-networked-sensing flagship; IPSN's distinctive move was the IP/SPOTS split and its information-processing/estimation flavor. Post-merger the two communities share one venue — but an IP-track style paper is still judged on its estimation/inference soundness.
• vs. OpenReview ML venues: IPSN is not open-review, not score-thread public, and not leaderboard-driven. Offline accuracy on a clean dataset does not carry a paper here; on-device or in-field evidence does.
• vs. CPS-IoT Week neighbors (RTAS/HSCC/ICCPS): those reviewers want timing guarantees, control theory, or hybrid-systems verification. An IPSN paper is judged on sensing/information-processing soundness and real measurement, not worst-case schedulability.

Where author leverage actually exists

[Before submission]  track choice + topic tags -> reviewer pool           (largest lever)
[Initial reviews]    factual corrections, a real-hardware number a reviewer said was missing
[Rebuttal]           narrow, evidence-backed answers to soundness/realism doubts
[After reject]       no journal-style guaranteed revision round; reroute or resubmit next cycle

A rebuttal moves borderline papers when it corrects a misread table or supplies a measured number a reviewer flagged; it does not move papers that argue taste or promise experiments not yet run.

Best Paper and Best Research Artifact judging

IPSN gave a Best Paper Award and a Best Research Artifact Award. The artifact award is a distinct incentive: a firmware+dataset package that an evaluator can actually run and reuse is judged on more than the paper's claims. Target it deliberately (ipsn-artifact-evaluation) — verify whether it persists under the successor (待核实).

Misreadings to avoid

• Expecting a journal-style Major Revision — IPSN is conference-style accept/reject with a rebuttal, not a guaranteed revise-and-resubmit round (unlike a journal or a Major-Revision venue).
• Treating the rebuttal as a debate — the PC discussion decides; the rebuttal is evidence for an advocate, not a closing argument.
• Assuming the successor keeps IPSN's exact mechanics — the merged SenSys may differ; confirm.

Output format

[Process stage] pre-submission / awaiting reviews / rebuttal / decision / accepted
[Track] IP / SPOTS (or successor category)
[Criterion map] each review point -> soundness | evidence-realism | novelty | reproducibility | track-fit
[Leverage plan] the next-stage action that can actually change the outcome
[Forbidden moves] identity leak / unrun experiments promised as done / arguing taste