--- name: ieeesp-topic-selection description: Use when deciding whether a security or privacy project belongs at IEEE S&P (Oakland), including the threat-model test, SoK fit, routing among USENIX Security, CCS, NDSS, PETS, and CRYPTO, and whether the one-year resubmission embargo or the 40% overlap rule constrains the plan. --- # IEEE S&P Topic Selection Use this before any writing starts: is the project an Oakland paper, and if so, as a research paper or as an SoK? S&P has been the field's flagship since 1980 (first held at the Claremont Resort in the Oakland hills — hence the nickname), and its reviewer pool reads for adversarial rigor above topical fashion. ## The two-question fit test 1. **Is there a real adversary?** State who attacks, with what access, and what they win. If the paper has no defensible threat model — or the "attack" needs an adversary who could already do worse things more cheaply — Oakland reviewers will say so in round one. Papers where security is a motivating anecdote rather than the analyzed object usually belong at a systems, ML, or networking venue instead. 2. **Does the evidence close the loop?** An attack needs an end-to-end demonstration against a realistic target; a defense needs evaluation against an adaptive adversary who knows the defense exists; a measurement study needs a sampling story and an ethics story. A promising idea with simulation-only evidence is a workshop paper, not yet an S&P submission. ## SoK is a first-class lane Both the 2026 and 2027 CFPs solicit Systematization of Knowledge papers, marked with the `SoK:` title prefix and a submission-form checkbox (sp2027.ieee-security.org/cfpapers.html, checked 2026-07-08). An SoK is judged on its treatment of existing work — a new viewpoint on a major area, evidence that challenges a long-held belief, or a genuinely new taxonomy — not on new results. If your "survey" cannot name the belief it overturns or the structure it reveals, it is a literature review, and S&P rejects those. ## Routing among the security venues | Signal in your project | Better-fit venue | Why | |---|---|---| | Adversarial rigor + broad security relevance | **IEEE S&P** | Flagship generalist bar; SoK lane; Revise pathway rewards deep-but-fixable work | | Deployable systems artifact, engineering depth | USENIX Security | Artifact-forward culture, open-access proceedings | | Applied crypto protocols, broad ACM community | ACM CCS | Larger program, more topical tracks | | Network/protocol attacks needing fast turnaround | NDSS | February conference, distinct cycle timing | | Privacy is the community, not just the property | PETS/PoPETs | Journal-style revisions, privacy-native reviewers | | Theorems about cryptographic constructions | CRYPTO/EUROCRYPT | Proof-depth reviewing S&P cannot give | Route by contribution type and by calendar, not prestige: the four flagships alternate deadlines across the year, and S&P's own two cycles (June and November for the 2027 symposium) may simply not be the next open door. ## Embargo math changes the answer Two S&P-specific rules constrain venue strategy (2027 CFP, checked 2026-07-08): - A rejected paper may not return to S&P for **one year from the original submission date** — so a weak submission burns the venue, not just the cycle. - A new submission counts as a resubmission when roughly **40% or more overlaps** a previously rejected one; splitting a rejected paper into two does not reset the clock. If the evidence will not be ready, targeting a sibling venue first and S&P with the mature version is often the higher-expected-value order. ## Quick self-interrogation ```text Oakland fit worksheet (answer in one line each): 1. Adversary + access + payoff: .............................. 2. Evidence type that closes the loop (exploit / adaptive eval / measurement + ethics / systematization): .................. 3. If SoK: which belief or structure does it change? ......... 4. Embargo status: any ≥40%-overlap rejection at S&P in the last 12 months? ........................................... 5. Which cycle is realistically reachable with finished evidence (not finished writing)? .......................... → Any blank line = not ready to pick S&P yet. ``` ## Signals you are choosing S&P for the wrong reason - The main argument for Oakland is "it is ranked highest" — the four flagships are close peers; wasted cycles are the real cost. - The threat model was written after the experiments, to justify them. - The contribution is a faster/cheaper version of a published system with the same security argument — reviewers will ask what the *security* delta is. - The plan depends on the Revise outcome as a safety net; Revise is offered to a limited set of papers reviewers already believe in, not to drafts. ## Output format ```text [S&P fit] Strong / Plausible / Re-route (one-line reason) [Paper type] research / SoK [Threat-model status] stated & realistic / stated but strained / missing [Evidence gap] [Embargo check] clear / blocked until / 40%-overlap risk [Alternative order] ```