Icde Review Process

ICDE Review Process

Use this to reason about review-stage strategy. Reopen the current call, important-dates page, and any reviewer instructions before making process claims; ICDE re-declares its review model each edition.

Process model

• ICDE takes research papers in two rounds per edition (ICDE 2027: ≈June and November). Each paper draws at least three reviewers, coordinated by an area chair who synthesizes the reviews into a recommendation.
• The ICDE 2026 model ran two reviewing phases inside a round: the first phase returned Revise & Resubmit, Accept, or Reject; invited revisions were re-reviewed (≈4-week window) before a final Accept/Reject. Whether the current edition keeps the R&R phase is edition-specific (待核实).
• Review is single-blind: reviewers see author identity; authors do not see reviewers. This changes the calculus — reputational priors exist, so the paper must earn belief on evidence, not on names.
• A Round 1 reject is terminal for the edition; the paper cannot re-enter Round 2. That raises the stakes on getting the evaluation right the first time.
• Accepted papers publish in IEEE Xplore; camera-ready compliance and IEEE metadata matter as much as the acceptance itself.

Who reviews here

• The committee is builder-heavy: reviewers who have implemented indexes, optimizers, and storage engines. They read an evaluation the way an engineer reads a benchmark — skeptical of untuned baselines, single-point results, and hidden costs.
• Because scope overlaps SIGMOD and VLDB, at least one reviewer will likely know the nearest prior system intimately; a novelty claim that ignores it is caught, not skimmed past.
• Borderline systems papers usually fail on one of three edges: an untuned or unfair baseline, a performance claim with no operating point, or a mechanism whose benefit is never isolated by an ablation.

Scoring leverage table

Stage-by-stage realism

• Phase 1 reviews: read them as the area chair will — is the central evaluation objection answerable? A Revise & Resubmit is an opportunity, not a soft reject; treat the requirement list as binding.
• Revision re-review: the same reviewers check the list; unrequested scope changes hurt.
• Decision: one unresolved fairness or cost objection outweighs several resolved clarity nits, because a builder-heavy committee anchors on the evaluation.
• Round choice as strategy: since Round 1 rejects skip the edition, aiming an immature evaluation at the earlier round is a common self-inflicted loss.

Output format

[Current stage] submitted / phase-1 reviews / revision / decision / camera-ready
[Round] Round 1 or Round 2 (edition)
[Decision actors] <reviewers / area chair / program chairs>
[Likely leverage] <novelty / evaluation / soundness / reproducibility>
[Central objection] <the one thing the area chair will weigh most>
[Next response move] <one action>