CCS Review Process
Use this to reason about review-stage strategy. Reopen the current CFP, the cycle's HotCRP
site, the reviewer guidelines if posted, and the ethics policy before making process claims.
Process model
- CCS runs two review cycles per year on HotCRP, each with abstract registration, full-paper
submission, review, a rebuttal window, and notification.
- Reviewers assess threat-model soundness, novelty, technical correctness, evidence quality,
ethics and responsible disclosure, and significance to the security community.
- Decisions are not binary: CCS 2026 used accept, minor revision (authors revise for the same
cycle under a shepherd or check), and reject. A first-cycle reject cannot return that year.
- An ethics or disclosure concern can sink an otherwise strong paper; the ethics reviewer's
view carries weight independent of technical scores.
- Accepted papers publish in the ACM Digital Library proceedings, so camera-ready and metadata
compliance matter as much as the initial decision.
Who reviews here
- The pool is adversarial by training: expect at least one reviewer to attack your threat
model, look for the assumption that makes the attack easy, and probe whether the defense was
tested against an adaptive attacker.
- CCS is broad, so a paper may draw reviewers from an adjacent sub-area; the threat model and
intro must orient a web-security reviewer to a crypto result and vice versa.
- Borderline papers usually fall on one of three edges: an attacker assumption too strong to
be interesting, a defense never adapted against, or an ethics gap left unaddressed.
Scoring leverage table
| Review dimension |
What raises it |
What sinks it |
| Threat model |
A tight, realistic adversary stated up front |
Capabilities that quietly grow to make the attack work |
| Novelty |
An attack class or guarantee the literature lacked |
An increment over a cited paper with no new idea |
| Evidence |
End-to-end demonstration against a real target |
Lab-only results against a strawman |
| Ethics |
Disclosure done, harm minimized, reasoned in the paper |
Real-world harm with no disclosure or IRB reasoning |
Stage-by-stage realism
- Initial reviews: triage by what the meta-reviewer will weigh — threat model and evidence —
not by reviewer tone.
- Rebuttal: the window is short and structured; one crisp answer to the decision-critical
objection beats an exhaustive point-by-point.
- Decision: the meta-review synthesizes; one unresolved threat-model or ethics objection
outweighs several resolved clarity complaints.
- Minor revision: treat it as conditional acceptance with a checklist, not a debate; do
exactly what the shepherd asks within the cycle's timeline.
Output format
[Current stage] submitted / reviews / rebuttal / decision / revision / camera-ready
[Decision actors] <reviewers / ethics reviewer / meta-reviewer / chairs>
[Likely leverage] <threat model / novelty / evidence / ethics>
[Forbidden moves] <identity leak / new unsupported results / ignoring the shepherd>
[Next response move] <one action>
1---2name: ccs-review-process3description: Use when explaining or planning around ACM CCS peer review, the two-cycle HotCRP workflow, decision categories including minor revision, the rebuttal window, the adversarial reviewer pool, ethics and disclosure scrutiny, meta-review dynamics, and ACM proceedings outcomes.4---56# CCS Review Process78Use this to reason about review-stage strategy. Reopen the current CFP, the cycle's HotCRP9site, the reviewer guidelines if posted, and the ethics policy before making process claims.1011## Process model1213- CCS runs two review cycles per year on HotCRP, each with abstract registration, full-paper14 submission, review, a rebuttal window, and notification.15- Reviewers assess threat-model soundness, novelty, technical correctness, evidence quality,16 ethics and responsible disclosure, and significance to the security community.17- Decisions are not binary: CCS 2026 used accept, minor revision (authors revise for the same18 cycle under a shepherd or check), and reject. A first-cycle reject cannot return that year.19- An ethics or disclosure concern can sink an otherwise strong paper; the ethics reviewer's20 view carries weight independent of technical scores.21- Accepted papers publish in the ACM Digital Library proceedings, so camera-ready and metadata22 compliance matter as much as the initial decision.2324## Who reviews here2526- The pool is adversarial by training: expect at least one reviewer to attack your threat27 model, look for the assumption that makes the attack easy, and probe whether the defense was28 tested against an adaptive attacker.29- CCS is broad, so a paper may draw reviewers from an adjacent sub-area; the threat model and30 intro must orient a web-security reviewer to a crypto result and vice versa.31- Borderline papers usually fall on one of three edges: an attacker assumption too strong to32 be interesting, a defense never adapted against, or an ethics gap left unaddressed.3334## Scoring leverage table3536| Review dimension | What raises it | What sinks it |37|---|---|---|38| Threat model | A tight, realistic adversary stated up front | Capabilities that quietly grow to make the attack work |39| Novelty | An attack class or guarantee the literature lacked | An increment over a cited paper with no new idea |40| Evidence | End-to-end demonstration against a real target | Lab-only results against a strawman |41| Ethics | Disclosure done, harm minimized, reasoned in the paper | Real-world harm with no disclosure or IRB reasoning |4243## Stage-by-stage realism4445- Initial reviews: triage by what the meta-reviewer will weigh — threat model and evidence —46 not by reviewer tone.47- Rebuttal: the window is short and structured; one crisp answer to the decision-critical48 objection beats an exhaustive point-by-point.49- Decision: the meta-review synthesizes; one unresolved threat-model or ethics objection50 outweighs several resolved clarity complaints.51- Minor revision: treat it as conditional acceptance with a checklist, not a debate; do52 exactly what the shepherd asks within the cycle's timeline.5354## Output format5556```text57[Current stage] submitted / reviews / rebuttal / decision / revision / camera-ready58[Decision actors] <reviewers / ethics reviewer / meta-reviewer / chairs>59[Likely leverage] <threat model / novelty / evidence / ethics>60[Forbidden moves] <identity leak / new unsupported results / ignoring the shepherd>61[Next response move] <one action>62```
brycewang-stanford