IMC Review Process
Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. IMC's process is built around two
deadlines a year and a distinctive middle outcome — One-Shot-Revision — that is neither a
plain reject nor an open-ended major revision. The most consequential mental shift for authors
arriving from a single-round conference is that a good-but-incomplete measurement paper has a
bounded path to acceptance across deadlines.
Process model
- Submission and review run on HotCRP with double-blind anonymity maintained through
reviewing.
- Review proceeds in several rounds. Papers with a consensus for rejection are notified
early, so authors can move the work to another venue without waiting for the full cycle.
- First decisions fall into Accept, One-Shot-Revision, or Reject. Reviewers weigh the
significance of the measurement finding, the credibility of vantage points and ground truth, the
soundness of methodology, honesty about limitations and confounds, the Ethics treatment, and
artifact availability.
- Accepted papers may be shepherded by PC members — notably to ensure the artifacts promised
in the availability declaration are actually made available.
The One-Shot-Revision, precisely
| Element |
What the call specifies |
| Trigger |
At least one reviewer champion advocating the work's relevance and timeliness |
| Scope |
Up to 3 additions/changes — a bounded, concrete action list, not "revise broadly" |
| Resubmission |
To the next deadline in the two-deadline cycle |
| Re-review |
By the same reviewers, against the action points |
The strategic reading: a One-Shot-Revision is a contract. It is granted because someone
believes in the paper, and it is judged narrowly on whether the named action points were done.
Treat it as a near-accept with obligations, not a coin flip (see imc-author-response).
Reading a decision against the categories
| Decision |
What it means |
Author move |
| Accept |
Finding and method hold; shepherding for availability |
Deliver the promised artifact; do not reopen scope |
| One-Shot-Revision |
A champion exists; a bounded set of gaps (a missing vantage point, a confound to address, an ethics clarification) |
Execute exactly the named action points; resubmit next deadline to the same reviewers |
| Reject |
Structural: unrepresentative vantage points, no ground truth, thin measurement, ethics failure |
Reframe or reroute (SIGCOMM/NSDI/CoNEXT/PAM or a journal); do not lightly resubmit unchanged |
Design the submission so its weakest point is an addressable action item (an extra vantage
point, a longitudinal slice, a bounded confound) rather than a structural flaw (a study design you
cannot redo before the next deadline).
How IMC differs from its siblings
- vs. SIGCOMM / NSDI: those reward systems and protocol design with a supporting evaluation;
IMC rewards the measurement itself and enforces the Ethics gate and availability declaration
harder. Never assume a shared calendar or template.
- vs. a single-deadline conference: IMC's two deadlines plus One-Shot-Revision give a within-
year second chance with continuity of reviewers — closer to a lightweight revise-and-resubmit
than to "reject and try next year."
- vs. a journal: the revision is one shot and bounded (up to a few action points), not an
open iterative loop.
Who reads you
Expect measurement experts who will interrogate vantage-point representativeness, whether
ground truth is real, whether the finding is a snapshot artifact of a moving Internet, and whether
the active measurement was safe and ethical. Because IMC spans scanning, DNS, routing, web,
security, and social measurement, papers are matched to subarea reviewers — a vague methodology
gets caught, not skimmed.
Where author leverage actually exists
[Before submission] topic tags + vantage-point framing -> reviewer pool (largest lever)
[Initial reviews] factual corrections, clarifying vantage-point coverage, ethics clarifications
[One-Shot-Revision] the strongest lever: execute the bounded action points exactly, for the
same reviewers, and show each one done
[Shepherding] deliver the promised artifact; this is about availability, not new science
[After reject] no appeal; reroute to a sibling venue or a journal
Misreadings to avoid
- Treating One-Shot-Revision as a full rewrite window — you get a bounded action list and the
same reviewers; scope creep signals you missed the point.
- Treating One-Shot-Revision as guaranteed — the second read against the action points is
real.
- Ignoring the early-reject signal — a consensus-reject notice is a routing prompt, not an
invitation to argue.
- Underestimating shepherding — a promised dataset that never materializes is a real problem.
- Projecting last year's cadence — deadline dates and revision mechanics are per-edition.
Output format
[Process stage] pre-submission / awaiting reviews / one-shot-revision / shepherding / accepted
[Decision category] accept / one-shot-revision / reject, with the criterion driving it
[Champion?] is there a reviewer advocate? which review reads closest?
[Action points] <the bounded list to execute for the next deadline>
[Leverage plan] the next-stage action that can actually change the outcome
[Forbidden moves] identity leak / scope creep beyond the action points / undelivered artifact
1---2name: imc-review-process3description: Use when reasoning about how an ACM IMC submission is evaluated, covering double-blind multi-round review, the Accept / One-Shot-Revision / Reject decision categories, the reviewer-champion rule and bounded action points, early rejection of consensus-reject papers, shepherding for artifact availability, and how IMC's two-deadline model differs from SIGCOMM/NSDI cycles.4---56# IMC Review Process78Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. IMC's process is built around **two9deadlines a year** and a distinctive middle outcome — **One-Shot-Revision** — that is neither a10plain reject nor an open-ended major revision. The most consequential mental shift for authors11arriving from a single-round conference is that a good-but-incomplete measurement paper has a12*bounded* path to acceptance across deadlines.1314## Process model1516- Submission and review run on **HotCRP** with **double-blind** anonymity maintained through17 reviewing.18- Review proceeds in **several rounds**. Papers with a **consensus for rejection are notified19 early**, so authors can move the work to another venue without waiting for the full cycle.20- First decisions fall into **Accept**, **One-Shot-Revision**, or **Reject**. Reviewers weigh the21 significance of the measurement finding, the credibility of vantage points and ground truth, the22 soundness of methodology, honesty about limitations and confounds, the **Ethics** treatment, and23 artifact availability.24- Accepted papers may be **shepherded** by PC members — notably to ensure the **artifacts promised25 in the availability declaration are actually made available**.2627## The One-Shot-Revision, precisely2829| Element | What the call specifies |30|---|---|31| Trigger | At least **one reviewer champion** advocating the work's relevance and timeliness |32| Scope | Up to **3 additions/changes** — a bounded, concrete action list, not "revise broadly" |33| Resubmission | To the **next deadline** in the two-deadline cycle |34| Re-review | By the **same reviewers**, against the action points |3536The strategic reading: a One-Shot-Revision is a **contract**. It is granted because someone37believes in the paper, and it is judged narrowly on whether the named action points were done.38Treat it as a near-accept with obligations, not a coin flip (see `imc-author-response`).3940## Reading a decision against the categories4142| Decision | What it means | Author move |43|---|---|---|44| Accept | Finding and method hold; shepherding for availability | Deliver the promised artifact; do not reopen scope |45| One-Shot-Revision | A champion exists; a bounded set of gaps (a missing vantage point, a confound to address, an ethics clarification) | Execute exactly the named action points; resubmit next deadline to the same reviewers |46| Reject | Structural: unrepresentative vantage points, no ground truth, thin measurement, ethics failure | Reframe or reroute (SIGCOMM/NSDI/CoNEXT/PAM or a journal); do not lightly resubmit unchanged |4748Design the submission so its weakest point is **an addressable action item** (an extra vantage49point, a longitudinal slice, a bounded confound) rather than a structural flaw (a study design you50cannot redo before the next deadline).5152## How IMC differs from its siblings5354- **vs. SIGCOMM / NSDI:** those reward systems and protocol design with a supporting evaluation;55 IMC rewards the measurement itself and enforces the Ethics gate and availability declaration56 harder. Never assume a shared calendar or template.57- **vs. a single-deadline conference:** IMC's two deadlines plus One-Shot-Revision give a *within-58 year* second chance with continuity of reviewers — closer to a lightweight revise-and-resubmit59 than to "reject and try next year."60- **vs. a journal:** the revision is **one shot and bounded** (up to a few action points), not an61 open iterative loop.6263## Who reads you6465Expect measurement experts who will interrogate **vantage-point representativeness**, whether66ground truth is real, whether the finding is a snapshot artifact of a moving Internet, and whether67the active measurement was safe and ethical. Because IMC spans scanning, DNS, routing, web,68security, and social measurement, papers are matched to subarea reviewers — a vague methodology69gets caught, not skimmed.7071## Where author leverage actually exists7273```text74[Before submission] topic tags + vantage-point framing -> reviewer pool (largest lever)75[Initial reviews] factual corrections, clarifying vantage-point coverage, ethics clarifications76[One-Shot-Revision] the strongest lever: execute the bounded action points exactly, for the77 same reviewers, and show each one done78[Shepherding] deliver the promised artifact; this is about availability, not new science79[After reject] no appeal; reroute to a sibling venue or a journal80```8182## Misreadings to avoid8384- **Treating One-Shot-Revision as a full rewrite window** — you get a bounded action list and the85 same reviewers; scope creep signals you missed the point.86- **Treating One-Shot-Revision as guaranteed** — the second read against the action points is87 real.88- **Ignoring the early-reject signal** — a consensus-reject notice is a routing prompt, not an89 invitation to argue.90- **Underestimating shepherding** — a promised dataset that never materializes is a real problem.91- **Projecting last year's cadence** — deadline dates and revision mechanics are per-edition.9293## Output format9495```text96[Process stage] pre-submission / awaiting reviews / one-shot-revision / shepherding / accepted97[Decision category] accept / one-shot-revision / reject, with the criterion driving it98[Champion?] is there a reviewer advocate? which review reads closest?99[Action points] <the bounded list to execute for the next deadline>100[Leverage plan] the next-stage action that can actually change the outcome101[Forbidden moves] identity leak / scope creep beyond the action points / undelivered artifact102```
brycewang-stanford