ipsn-review-process
Use when reasoning about how an IPSN-lineage submission is evaluated, covering double-blind review, the per-track (IP / SPOTS) program committees, the rebuttal, Best Paper and Best Research Artifact judging, and how IPSN's process differs from SenSys's revision model, OpenReview venues, and CPS-IoT Week neighbors.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ipsn-review-process --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# IPSN Review Process Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. IPSN's process is **double-blind, per-track, and conference-style** (not journal-style): a submission is read by a program committee matched to its track — **IP** or **SPOTS** — and returns an accept/reject decision, usually with a rebuttal opportunity. Because IPSN merged into **SenSys**, confirm the successor's exact mechanics on the current call; the structure below is the IPSN-lineage model and what to expect. ## Process model - Submission and review run on **HotCRP** with **double-blind** anonymity: author identities are hidden from reviewers and reviewer identities from authors. - Papers are matched to reviewers **by track**. An **IP-track** paper is read by method reviewers (estimation, signal processing, learning, localization); a **SPOTS-track** paper by platform/systems reviewers (hardware, embedded software, tools, deployment). This is why the track choice in `ipsn-submission` matters so much. - Reviewers weigh: the **soundness** of the information-processing method or platform design; whether the **evidence is real** (real sensors, ground truth, measured energy/latency, honest deployment num
- Process model
- What each track's reviewers check first
- Reading a decision against the criteria
- How IPSN differs from its neighbors and successor
- Where author leverage actually exists
- Best Paper and Best Research Artifact judging
- Misreadings to avoid
- Output format
What does the ipsn-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how an IPSN-lineage submission is evaluated, covering double-blind review, the per-track (IP / SPOTS) program committees, the rebuttal, Best Paper and Best Research Artifact judging, and how IPSN's process differs from SenSys's revision model, OpenReview venues, and CPS-IoT Week neighbors.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ipsn-review-process --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, a repository with 909 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.