Submission Checklist

Last updated: Sep 9, 2026 — see what changed.

Authors should read and comply with the full Call for Papers. We have drafted a brief checklist below to help you double-check, but it may not capture every detail, so the full CfP takes precedence. If you think we have missed something important from the CfP in the checklist, we welcome your feedback at pcchairs@satml.org.

Before writing

  • Scope: safety/trustworthiness engaged throughout, not just the intro. Ask pcchairs@satml.org if unsure.
  • Category: Research 12pp body text; SoK 12pp body text, title starts "SoK:"; Position 5 to 12pp body text, title starts "Position:". SoK and Position also need a 300-word "New Insights" field in HotCRP; the field is mandatory, so research papers enter "N/A". References and appendices unlimited.
  • Format: PDF, \documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}, 10pt, no change in geometry/template.

Abstract registration, Tue 22 Sep 2026 (AoE)

  • Mandatory. Tentative title, non-blank abstract, final authors, final topics.
  • Answer the HotCRP field on whether the paper is still under review elsewhere. If it is, that other submission must be resolved (rejected or withdrawn) by the paper submission deadline.
  • Nominate one author, by email exactly as listed, as author-reviewer. The nomination cannot be changed afterwards.
  • ORCID in every author's HotCRP profile.
  • Author Certification completed by all authors.
  • Declare all mandatory conflicts (see “Conflicts of Interest policy”). Fake conflicts are not allowed.

Paper submission, Tue 29 Sep 2026 (AoE)

  • Anonymized: no names or affiliations, own work cited in third person, no hints that artifacts are already public, all linked material anonymous. Keep essential background citations.
  • "Open Science" section right before references: what you release, or why you cannot.
  • Anonymous repository link (e.g. anonymous.4open.science) submitted in HotCRP.
  • "LLM usage considerations" section (after open science, before references) if any LLM was used, including the required editorial-use statement. If LLMs are part of the method, detail their role, limitations, and compute justification.
  • Optional: "Ethical Considerations" section before the references.
  • Verify every reference and result yourself. Fabrications count as misconduct. Self-check with hallucinator.science.
  • If the paper received reviews at another venue, whether rejected or withdrawn, append those reviews unedited plus your response, at the very end of the paper after all appendices.
  • Update your conflict declarations in the last 24 hours before the submission deadline: PC members may have been added since abstract registration.
  • No overlap with published, accepted, or concurrently submitted work.
  • Optional: Set the LLM-processing opt-in flag.

The Open Science, LLM usage considerations, and Ethical Considerations sections do not count towards the page limit.

Artifacts, Fri 2 Oct 2026

  • Last chance to update the anonymous artifact repository linked from your HotCRP submission (e.g. anonymous.4open.science). The artifact must remain accessible and unedited for the rest of the review process.

If submission volume triggers contingency measures

  • Re-check conflicts against an expanded PC if asked, up to 24 hours before the submission deadline.
  • Be ready to review up to three papers per submission you are nominated on, if that requirement is activated. The load is cumulative across submissions.

If accepted

  • Camera-ready: mid-February (exact date TBC).
  • Artifacts on Zenodo, by Thu 14 Jan 2027 (for accepted papers), or the camera-ready deadline (for papers invited to revise, and later accepted).
  • One author registered at the full rate and presenting in person.

Desk rejection

The grounds for desk rejection are set out in the relevant sections of the Call for Papers. In summary, a paper may be desk rejected for one or more of the following reasons:

  • broken anonymity, or self-promotion that reveals author identity
  • incorrect format or excessive length
  • work that is out of scope, or clearly below the quality bar (after initial review by program and area chairs)
  • violations of the Open Science or LLM policies, including non-existent references
  • missing author ORCIDs or author certification
  • missing prior reviews from a paper that received reviews at another venue
  • adding or removing authors after abstract registration
  • late or inadequate-quality reviews from the nominated author-reviewer, if author-reviewing is activated

This summary may not capture every detail, and the full CfP takes precedence.