MobiCom Review Process

Understanding MobiCom's review structure changes what you do at each stage. Unlike a single-verdict venue, MobiCom runs two rounds per deadline with an early-reject cut and a rebuttal, and then keeps a one-shot revision channel on top. Knowing which state you are in — and what each state affords — is the difference between a wasted rolling deadline and a converging paper.

The stages and the outcome space

Submission
  -> Round 1 review
       -> EARLY REJECT (reviews returned)         [use them for the next round]
       -> advance to Round 2
  -> Round 2 review -> reviews RELEASED -> REBUTTAL window -> PC decision
       -> ACCEPT
       -> ONE-SHOT REVISION (required-changes list)
       -> REJECT

The early reject is data, not just a loss

A round-1 early reject returns reviews well before the round closes. Because MobiCom's rounds roll, those reviews are the highest-value input to your next submission — of the same work, improved, or of a re-scoped version. Do not treat it as a dead end; treat it as a free review cycle that most single-deadline venues do not offer.

The rebuttal window is short and fixed

After round-2 reviews are released, the rebuttal window opens on a clock you do not control. Its purpose is narrow: correct factual misunderstandings and answer specific reviewer questions, not to add a new contribution. Plan coauthor availability for it in advance, because it lands weeks after submission when attention has moved on (mobicom-author-response). The exact length/format of the rebuttal is 待核实 for the current cycle — read the instructions live.

The one-shot revision is a commitment

A one-shot (major) revision is not a soft accept. It is a contract against a specific list of required changes, usually re-reviewed by the same reviewers where possible. Before accepting the plan, cost the experiments it demands in testbed-weeks (mobicom-workflow); a revision that dodges an item on the list, or that re-runs without the requested condition, is the fastest way to convert a revision into a reject.

Reviewer continuity shapes strategy

Because the same reviewers tend to carry a paper across the rebuttal and a revision:

• A rebuttal that concedes a real weakness credibly is worth more than one that argues every point; the same reviewer reads the revision.
• Promises made in a rebuttal become the revision's checklist — do not promise what you cannot measure by the revision deadline.
• Consistency across rebuttal → revision → camera-ready matters; contradicting your own earlier response is a memorable red flag.

Confidentiality and conduct

Reviews and PC discussion are confidential; do not quote reviewers publicly or attempt to deanonymize them. Reviewer identity is protected the same way author identity is. If you believe a review breaches policy, the chairs are the channel, not social media.

Output format

[State] early-reject / advanced / accept / revision / reject
[Reviews] key issues extracted, sorted by severity
[If advanced] rebuttal plan: factual corrections vs question answers
[If revision] required-changes list -> experiment cost in testbed-weeks
[If early reject] which next round + what to fix first
[Continuity] promises that will become the revision checklist