brycewang-stanford MobiCom Review Process
Understanding MobiCom's review structure changes what you do at each stage. Unlike a single-verdict venue, MobiCom runs two rounds per deadline with an early-reject cut and a rebuttal, and then keeps a one-shot revision channel on top. Knowing which state you are in — and what each state affords — is the difference between a wasted rolling deadline and a converging paper.
The stages and the outcome space
Submission
-> Round 1 review
-> EARLY REJECT (reviews returned) [use them for the next round]
-> advance to Round 2
-> Round 2 review -> reviews RELEASED -> REBUTTAL window -> PC decision
-> ACCEPT
-> ONE-SHOT REVISION (required-changes list)
-> REJECT
| State | What it means | What you do |
|---|---|---|
| Early reject | did not clear round 1; full reviews returned | mine reviews, decide next round (mobicom-workflow) |
| Advanced | reached round 2; reviews will come with a rebuttal window | prepare to respond fast (mobicom-author-response) |
| Accept | in the program | artifacts + camera-ready (mobicom-camera-ready) |
| One-shot revision | conditional; a list of required changes | treat as a contract; plan the experiments |
| Reject | terminal for this submission | reframe or re-target; do not resubmit unchanged |
The early reject is data, not just a loss
A round-1 early reject returns reviews well before the round closes. Because MobiCom's rounds roll, those reviews are the highest-value input to your next submission — of the same work, improved, or of a re-scoped version. Do not treat it as a dead end; treat it as a free review cycle that most single-deadline venues do not offer.
The rebuttal window is short and fixed
After round-2 reviews are released, the rebuttal window opens on a clock you do not control.
Its purpose is narrow: correct factual misunderstandings and answer specific reviewer
questions, not to add a new contribution. Plan coauthor availability for it in advance,
because it lands weeks after submission when attention has moved on
(mobicom-author-response). The exact length/format of the rebuttal is 待核实 for the current
cycle — read the instructions live.
The one-shot revision is a commitment
A one-shot (major) revision is not a soft accept. It is a contract against a specific
list of required changes, usually re-reviewed by the same reviewers where possible. Before
accepting the plan, cost the experiments it demands in testbed-weeks (mobicom-workflow); a
revision that dodges an item on the list, or that re-runs without the requested condition, is
the fastest way to convert a revision into a reject.
Reviewer continuity shapes strategy
Because the same reviewers tend to carry a paper across the rebuttal and a revision:
- A rebuttal that concedes a real weakness credibly is worth more than one that argues every point; the same reviewer reads the revision.
- Promises made in a rebuttal become the revision's checklist — do not promise what you cannot measure by the revision deadline.
- Consistency across rebuttal → revision → camera-ready matters; contradicting your own earlier response is a memorable red flag.
Confidentiality and conduct
Reviews and PC discussion are confidential; do not quote reviewers publicly or attempt to deanonymize them. Reviewer identity is protected the same way author identity is. If you believe a review breaches policy, the chairs are the channel, not social media.
Output format
[State] early-reject / advanced / accept / revision / reject
[Reviews] key issues extracted, sorted by severity
[If advanced] rebuttal plan: factual corrections vs question answers
[If revision] required-changes list -> experiment cost in testbed-weeks
[If early reject] which next round + what to fix first
[Continuity] promises that will become the revision checklist