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

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