--- name: rss-submission description: Use when auditing an RSS (Robotics: Science and Systems) submission for OpenReview readiness — the abstract/paper/supplement deadline cascade, the 8-page-excluding-references ceiling, double-blind compliance, PDF self-containment, the no-links-until-camera-ready rule, and dual-submission exposure. --- # RSS Submission Final-gate audit for an RSS submission. Every rule below was verified for the 2026 cycle (CFP + review-process page, checked 2026-07-08); reopen the live CFP before enforcing any of it on a later cycle. ## The three-deadline cascade RSS 2026 staged submission across three AoE cutoffs one week apart: | Gate | 2026 date | What locks | |---|---|---| | Abstract | January 23 | Title, abstract, authors, OpenReview record exists | | Full paper | January 30 | The reviewed PDF — main file, PDF only | | Supplementary | February 6 | Media/code/appendix archive (`rss-supplementary`) | Treat the abstract gate as real: no record by January 23 meant no paper submission. The supplement gate is *later* than the paper — a sequencing gift ML-venue habits squander by trying to finish everything for the paper date. ## Format audit - **Page ceiling, not target:** at most 8 pages excluding references, and the CFP states reviewers look favorably on papers that are *not* unnecessarily long. Padding to the limit is a negative signal at this venue, unlike most. - **Self-containment rule:** the main PDF must contain everything needed for an expert to verify the central claims. Appendices, proofs, and data listings go to the supplement — but if a reviewer must open the supplement to believe the claim, the paper fails the rule. - **No external links:** project pages, hosted videos, and repos are welcome only in the camera-ready. In the submission they are at best ignored and at worst an anonymity breach. ## Double-blind sweep RSS 2026 review was double-blind. Sweep in this order, because robotics leaks differently from ML: 1. **Footage and figures** — lab walls, robot decals, institutional colors, staff in frame. Robotics papers de-anonymize through pixels more often than through prose. 2. **Platform genealogy** — "our previously published gripper [12]" narrows authorship to one lab; rewrite as third-person hardware description. 3. **Metadata** — PDF author fields, video container tags, archive paths containing usernames. 4. **Prose** — acknowledgements, grant numbers, dataset names unique to one group. ## Eligibility and overlap - Declare and resolve dual-submission exposure: the same work under review at ICRA, IROS, CoRL, or a journal is a standard robotics failure pattern given the packed calendar (`rss-workflow`). - arXiv preprints: handle per the current cycle's wording — do not assume either permission or prohibition (待核实 each year). - There is no separate demo-paper category in 2026; do not submit a demo write-up expecting a lighter track. ## OpenReview record audit The 2026 venue group lived at `roboticsfoundation.org/RSS/2026/Conference`. Field errors are self-inflicted desk risks; check each against the PDF: - Title and abstract match the PDF character-for-character (search indexing and AC assignment both read the form, not the file). - Author list complete *in the form* even though the PDF is anonymous — conflicts and reviewer assignment run off form metadata. - Every author's OpenReview profile has current affiliation and conflict domains; a stale profile silently corrupts conflict detection. - Subject areas chosen for the AC you want: they route the paper to its jury. - The supplement upload slot is a separate object with its own February deadline — verify it attached to the right paper ID. ## Severity ladder | Finding | Severity | Window to repair | |---|---|---| | Missed abstract gate | Fatal for the cycle | None | | Main text over 8 pages excl. references | Desk risk | Until the paper gate | | External link in submitted PDF | Anonymity/desk risk | Until the paper gate | | Lab-identifiable footage in supplement | Anonymity breach | Until the supplement gate | | Claim provable only via supplement | Review-stage damage | Restructure before paper gate | | Undeclared sibling-venue overlap | Integrity finding | Withdraw one before review | ## Last-72-hours sequence 1. Freeze the claims sentence and re-derive the title/abstract from it. 2. Rebuild the PDF from clean sources; check author metadata is empty. 3. Run the anonymity sweep above on paper *and* supplement together. 4. Verify every figure is legible at print scale — trial-count tables especially. 5. Enter OpenReview fields; confirm the abstract text matches the PDF verbatim. 6. Submit the paper with hours of margin; AoE is generous but robot demos are not the thing to be finishing at 11pm on deadline day. ## Notes that save a cycle - The abstract-gate week is a real strategic asset: title, abstract, and subject areas can be refined against the actual claim during the paper week, but the *scope* they promise should not swing wildly — ACs see both versions. - Reference pages are excluded from the 8-page count in 2026; do not compress citations to save body space, and do not smuggle content into reference-page footnotes either. - Templates and any style-file requirements were not verifiable through the gateway at check time (待核实): download whatever the live CFP links and diff your preamble against it rather than reusing last year's class file. - If the robot produced new decisive results after January 30: they cannot enter the reviewed record. Bank them for the rebuttal *only* as clarification, or for the journal extension — not as smuggled supplement additions. ## Output format ```text [Submission verdict] ready / needs fixes / not ready [Gate status] abstract | paper | supplement [Format risks] [Anonymity findings] [Overlap exposure] [Fix order] ```