search

ieee-security / ongoing-submission-refinement

Public forum for discussing refinements to IEEE S&P's ongoing submission model
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
9 stars 0 forks source link

Reconsider one-year block #4

Open siccegge opened 5 years ago

siccegge commented 5 years ago

Realisticly I can't see any advantage in imposing a one-year block on rejected papers. The primary effect seems to be to increase review load on the involved people: I think noone believes authors will just wait for a whole year to pass before submitting their work again. Instead papers will end up being submitted to NDSS, USENIX, CCS which draws from the same pool of reviewers.

So the primary effect of banning resubmission of rejected papers is forcing it on a fresh set of reviewers instead of giving it back to the same people who are already familiar with it (because they reviewed the previous version) and can handle it more efficiently and additionally increasing randomness (where reviewers disagree).

I'd suggest dropping this requirement alltogether or adding a reject&resubmit similar to what PETS has where only the 10-15% of submissions get a hard reject (papers that don't stand a chance to get in even if heavily improved) and everything else can submit again (but without any guarantees as with major revisions)

parno commented 5 years ago

Another way to look at it is that the PC now has the option to issue a Revise decision to papers they think are plausibly Oakland papers but that fall short in one or two respects. Papers that are rejected don't even meet that bar, which suggests they're fairly far from being Oakland accepts, in that the PC doesn't think that, even with three more months of work, the paper would be likely to be accepted. If the authors disagree, they may be better off with a fresh set of reviewers than returning to the original set of skeptical reviewers.