Eurosys Review Process

EuroSys Review Process

Use this to model the decision machinery around a EuroSys submission. Facts below are the 2026/2027 cycles as rendered on 2026-07-08 from the EuroSys CFPs and conference pages; per-round mechanics (rebuttal windows, review counts, online PC meeting format) are set inside each HotCRP instance — 待核实 there.

One conference, two juries

Each EuroSys edition accepts papers through two temporally separate rounds — for 2027: spring (papers May 14, 2026 → notification August 21, 2026) and fall (papers September 24, 2026 → notification January 29, 2027). Both cohorts are published in the same proceedings and presented at the same April conference. Strategically this means:

• Your competition is round-local; the PC calibrates within the round it reads.
• A spring reject cannot simply "try again in the fall": the CFP bars a rejected paper from returning until the same round of the next edition — a full year, not one deadline.
• A revision offer, by contrast, explicitly bridges rounds: revise-and-resubmit at the subsequent deadline, judged against the issued condition list.

The outcome triple

"One-shot" is literal: the revision is evaluated once, against the conditions, by a process designed for continuity with the original reviews. There is no second revision offer downstream of the first.

Who is reading

• A double-blind HotCRP process: reviewers do not see authors, and conflicts declared at abstract registration drive assignments.
• The PC spans the breadth of European and international systems research — kernels, distributed systems, storage, cloud runtimes, virtualization, systems security, and increasingly systems-for-ML. Expect at least one reviewer whose home sub-area differs from yours; the paper's framing must carry them.
• EuroSys has repeatedly run a Shadow PC (e.g., 2026.eurosys.org/shadow-pc.html), where early-career researchers review real submissions in parallel as training. Practical consequence: write for a rigorous but possibly junior reader, and expect the community's reviewing norms to be unusually explicit and well-documented.

What moves a PC discussion here

1. Verifiable evaluation fairness — tuned baselines, named versions, disclosed hardware — because the deepest systems-review instinct is to distrust a benchmark table.
2. A mechanism the reviewer can retell — if the design section cannot be summarized in three sentences at the PC meeting, no champion can defend it.
3. Claims scoped to evidence — a paper that says where it loses earns the credibility spent by every paper that doesn't.
4. Deployment plausibility — EuroSys values systems that could run outside the lab; a purely synthetic setting needs an explicit bridge to practice.

A round from the author's seat

Between the paper gate and notification (roughly fourteen weeks in the 2027 spring round: May 14 → August 21), the author-visible surface is nearly silent. What happens behind it, in the standard HotCRP shape:

1. Bidding and assignment off the registered topics and conflicts.
2. First-round reviews; possibly a cut before additional reviews are commissioned on papers still alive.
3. Rebuttal or author-reviewer interaction if the round runs one (待核实 in the round's HotCRP announcements).
4. Online PC discussion converging each paper into one of the three bins, with revision-condition lists drafted for the middle bin.
5. Notification, reviews, and — for the middle bin — the condition list.

The author-controllable inputs are all front-loaded: the registered abstract (bidding quality), the conflicts (assignment sanity), and the paper itself. Mid-round, the only lever is the response phase, if any.

Conduct boundaries

• No reviewer contact outside the platform, no identity fishing, no parallel submission of the same work to another archival venue.
• Public talks and preprints during review are governed by the round's anonymity wording — 待核实 before scheduling a seminar on the submitted work under its submission title.

Reading your reviews structurally

For each review, extract:
  score-driver:   the sentence that explains the score (rarely the summary)
  fixability:     bounded experiment/rewrite  -> revision-compatible
                  identity-level objection    -> reject-compatible
  round-awareness: does the reviewer propose revision conditions?
Then ask: across reviewers, is there a coherent, enumerable condition list?
  yes -> argue toward the revision bin in the rebuttal (if the round has one)
  no  -> maximize the accept case on the strongest review's terms

Output format

[Round position] spring / fall, and days to its next gate
[Outcome forecast] accept / revision / reject, with the driving signal
[Condition-list coherence] <enumerable fixes or identity-level objections>
[Ban exposure] <date this paper may legally return if rejected>
[待核实] <this round's rebuttal window, review counts, PC-meeting form>