SOUPS 2018 Call for Papers
SOUPS 2018 14th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security,
In cooperation with USENIX, the Advanced Computing Systems
Association, SOUPS 2018 will be co-located with the 27th USENIX
Security Symposium,
Baltimore, MD, USA,
August 12-14, 2018.
(Paper Registration Deadline 12 February 2018)
The Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security will bring
together an interdisciplinary group of researchers and practitioners
in human computer interaction, security, and privacy. We invite
authors to submit previously unpublished papers describing research or
experience in all areas of usable privacy and security. We welcome a
variety of research methods, including both qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Papers will be judged on their scientific
quality, overall quality, and value to the community.
For more information, please see https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2018
Important Dates
All dates are at 23:59 AoE (Anywhere on Earth) time.
Paper registration deadline: Monday, February 12, 2018
Paper submission deadline: Friday, February 16, 2018
Early rejection notification: Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Rebuttal period: Saturday, April 14–Friday, April 20, 2018
Notification of paper acceptance: Tuesday, May 1, 2018
Camera ready papers due: Tuesday, June 5, 2018
The 2018 Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS) will bring
together an interdisciplinary group of researchers and practitioners
in human computer interaction, security, and privacy. The program will
feature:
technical papers, including replication papers
workshops and tutorials
a poster session
lightning talks
Technical Papers
We invite authors to submit previously unpublished papers describing
research or experience in all areas of usable privacy and security. We
welcome a variety of research methods, including both qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Papers will be judged on their scientific
quality, overall quality, and value to the community. Topics include,
but are not limited to:
Innovative security or privacy functionality and design
Field studies of security or privacy technology
Usability evaluations of new or existing security or privacy features
Security testing of new or existing usability features
Longitudinal studies of deployed security or privacy features
Studies of administrators or developers and support for security and privacy
The impact of organizational policy or procurement decisions
Lessons learned from the deployment and use of usable privacy and
security features
Foundational principles of usable security or privacy
Ethical, psychological, sociological aspects of usable security and privacy
Usable security and privacy implications/solutions for specific
domains (e.g., IoT, medical, vulnerable populations)
Replicating or extending important previously published studies
and experiments
Paper Registration: Technical papers must be registered by the
deadline listed above. Registration is mandatory for all
papers. Registering a paper in the submission system requires filling
out all of the fields of the online form that describe the submission,
but does not require uploading a PDF of the paper. This information is
used to facilitate the assignment of reviewers. Placeholder or
incomplete titles and abstracts may be rejected without review.
Paper Submission: Technical papers must be uploaded as PDF by the
deadline listed above. All submissions must follow the guidelines
described below. Submissions that violate any of the requirements
below may be rejected without review.
Contact the program chairs at soups18submissions@usenix.org if you
have any questions about these requirements.
Format and Page Limits: Papers must use the SOUPS formatting template
(available for MS Word or LaTeX), and be submitted as a PDF via the
submission system. Submissions must be no more than 12 pages
(excluding acknowledgements, bibliography, and appendices) and up to
20 pages total including acknowledgements, bibliography, and
appendices. For the body of your paper, brevity is appreciated, as
evidenced by the fact that many papers in prior years have been well
under this limit.
Paper Content: Papers need to describe the purpose and goals of the
work, cite related work, show how the work effectively integrates
usability or human factors with security or privacy, and clearly
indicate the innovative aspects of the work or lessons learned as well
as the contribution of the work to the field. The paper abstracts
should contain a sentence summarizing the contribution to the field
and literature.
All submissions must clearly relate to the human aspects of security
or privacy. Papers on security or privacy that do not address
usability or human factors will not be considered. Likewise, papers on
usability or human factors that do not address security or privacy
will not be considered. The determination of whether a paper is within
scope will be solely at the discretion of the program committee
chairs.
Authors are encouraged to review: Common Pitfalls in Writing about
Security and Privacy Human Subjects Experiments, and How to Avoid
Them. Note that this paper addresses research work taking an
experimental and quantitative approach, with hypothesis testing and
statistical inference. However, SOUPS welcomes submissions that take
other approaches, and recognizes that other methodological
considerations will be appropriate.
Replication Papers: Besides original work, we are looking for
well-executed replication studies that meaningfully shift the
confidence in the result under consideration. Please prefix the title
of these papers with the word "Replication:" for the review process.
Replication papers should aim to replicate important/influential
findings from the literature. They may not necessarily offer new or
unexpected findings; papers confirming previous findings are also
considered contributions. Replication of a result that has already
been replicated many times is less valuable. Replication of an obscure
study that originally had only minimal influence on the community is
less valuable. Authors should clearly state why they conducted a
replication study, describe the methodological differences precisely,
and compare their findings with the results from the original study.
Replication papers will be held to the same scientific standards as
other technical papers. They should use currently accepted
methodologies and technologies. Authors should not reuse outdated
methods/technologies simply because they were used in the original
paper. Replications may follow the same protocol as the original
study, may vary one key variable to see whether the result is
extensible (e.g., re-running a study with a sample from a different
population), or may have the same goal but different design (e.g.,
conducting a field study instead of a self-reporting survey; using a
different measurement instrument to measure a variable).
Anonymization: Reviewing is double blind. No names or affiliations
should appear on the title page or in the body of the paper,
acknowledgements should be blinded, and papers should avoid revealing
the authors' identities in the text. Any references to the authors'
own work should be made in the third person, as if it was work by
someone else. Appendices and figures should also be blinded (e.g., do
not leave logos or contact info on study materials, and remove
de-anonymizing URLs from screenshots).
Overlap with previous papers: Submitted papers must not significantly
overlap papers that have been published or that are simultaneously
submitted to a peer-reviewed venue or publication. Any overlap between
your submitted paper and other work either under submission or
previously published must be documented in an explanatory note and
sent to the chairs. State precisely how the two works differ in their
goals, share experiments or data sources, and offer unique
contributions. If the other work is under submission elsewhere, the
program committee may ask to review that work to evaluate the
overlap. Please note that program committees frequently share
information about papers under review and reviewers usually work on
multiple conferences simultaneously. Technical reports are exempt from
this rule, e.g., arXiv reports. If in doubt, please contact the
program chairs at soups18submissions@usenix.org for advice.
Self-plagiarism includes verbatim or near-verbatim use of one’s own
published work without citing the original source, and is generally
not acceptable. In some cases, it may be acceptable to include a brief
portion of selected content from the introduction, background, related
work, or methods of a closely related paper. In these cases, the
original paper must be explicitly referenced and the overlap should be
clear to the reader. The reused content must not be part of the main
contributions of the paper and, where possible, re-writing the text is
prefered. Papers with significant text reuse may be rejected because
of too much overlap. If in doubt, please contact the program chairs at
soups18submissions@usenix.org for advice.
Appendices: Authors may attach to their paper supplementary appendices
containing study materials (e.g., survey instruments, interview
guides, etc.) that would not otherwise fit within the body of the
paper. These appendices may be included to assist reviewers with
questions that fall outside the stated contribution of your paper, on
which your work is to be evaluated. Reviewers are not required to read
any appendices, so your paper should be self contained without
them. Accepted papers will be published online with their
supplementary appendices included.
Conflicts of Interest: The submission system will request information
about conflicts of interest between the paper's authors with program
committee (PC) members. It is the full responsibility of all authors
of a paper to identify their potential conflict-of-interest PC
members, according to the following definition. A paper author has a
conflict of interest with a PC member when one or more of the
following conditions holds:
The PC member is a co-author of the paper.
The PC member has been a co-worker in the same company or
university within the past four years.
The PC member has been a collaborator within the past four years.
The PC member is or was an author’s thesis advisor, no matter how long ago.
An author is or was the PC member's thesis advisor, no matter how long ago.
The PC member is a relative or close personal friend of the author.
Ethical Research: User studies should follow the basic principles of
ethical research, including beneficence (maximizing the benefits to an
individual or to society while minimizing harm to the individual),
minimal risk (appropriateness of the risk versus benefit ratio),
voluntary consent, respect for privacy, and limited deception. Authors
are encouraged to include in their submissions explanation of how
ethical principles were followed, and may be asked to provide such an
explanation should questions arise during the review process. If your
organization or institution requires formal clearance for research
with human subjects, your paper may be rejected if clearance was not
obtained. However, such clearance alone does not guarantee acceptance
and the program committee may reject a paper on ethical grounds.
Early Rejections: Papers that receive substantially negative initial
reviews will be rejected early. The authors of early-rejected papers,
and only such papers, will receive a copy of their initial reviews. At
this point, papers are no longer considered under submission (except
if authors appeal).
Authors who substantively disagree with the reviews can appeal to the
program committee chairs. Authors’ appeals must clearly and explicitly
identify concrete disagreements with factual statements in the initial
reviews. Appealing a submission that was rejected early will keep it
under consideration, and it cannot be withdrawn or resubmitted
elsewhere until the final notification of acceptance or rejection.
Rebuttals: The rebuttal period will be held after the second round of
reviews, so the authors will be given a chance to see and correct
factual errors in all reviews. Authors may provide a short rebuttal
that will be considered in subsequent discussions. Authors' rebuttals
must clearly and explicitly identify concrete issues with factual
statements in the initial reviews, or provide clarification to
explicit reviewer questions. Due to time constraints, the rebuttal
period is fairly short. Please ensure that you reserve enough time
between April 14 and April 20 for the rebuttal process. Late rebuttals
will not be accepted.
Publication: Accepted papers will be published by the USENIX
Association, and will be freely available on the USENIX and SOUPS
websites. Authors will retain copyright of their papers. Authors may
also release pre-prints of their accepted work to the public at their
discretion.
Presentation: For accepted papers, at least one of the paper authors
must attend the conference and present the work.
* Conflict of Interest and Early Rejection policies adapted from IEEE S&P 2017.
* Replication papers description adapted from Elsevier Journal of
Molecular and Cellular Cardiology.
Conference Organizers
General Chair
Mary Ellen Zurko, MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Vice General Chair
Heather Richter Lipford, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Invited Talks Chair
Adam Aviv, U.S. Naval Academy
Technical Papers Co-Chairs
Sonia Chiasson, Carleton University
Rob Reeder, Google
Technical Papers Committee
Yasemin Acar, Leibniz University Hannover
Nalin Asanka Gamagedara Arachchilage, University of New South Wales
Adam Aviv, United States Naval Academy
Rebecca Balebako, RAND Corporation
Joseph Bonneau, NYU
Pam Briggs, University of Northumbria
Joe Calandrino, Federal Trade Commission
Marshini Chetti, Princeton University
Jeremy Clark, Concordia University
Heather Crawford, Florida Institute of Technology
Alexander De Luca, Google
Tamara Denning, University of Utah
Serge Egelman, UC Berkeley/International Computer Science Institute
Sascha Fahl, Leibniz University Hannover
Alain Forget, Google
Marian Harbach, Audi AG
Apu Kapadia, Indiana University Bloomington
Katharina Krombholz, SBA Research
Janne Lindqvist, Rutgers University
Michelle Mazurek, University of Maryland
Andrew Patrick, Prisus Research
Heather Patterson, Intel
Michael Reiter, UNC Chapel Hill
Manya Sleeper, Google
Jessica Staddon, Google
Mary Theofanos, NIST
Blase Ur, University of Chicago
Emanuel von Zezschwitz, University of Bonn
Yang Wang, Syracuse University
Rick Wash, Michigan State University
Heng Xu, Penn State University
Lightning Talks and Demos Chair
Heather Crawford, Florida Institute of Technology
Scott Ruoti, MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Karat Award Chair
Jose Such, Kings College London
Posters Co-Chairs
Yasemin Acar, Leibniz University Hannover
Kent Seamons, Brigham Young University
Tutorials and Workshops Co-Chairs
Elissa Redmiles, University of Maryland
Florian Schaub, University of Michigan
Publicity Co-Chairs
Joe Calandrino, Federal Trade Commission
Patrick Gage Kelley, University of New Mexico
Sponsorship Chair
Heather Richter Lipford, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Email List Chair
Lorrie Cranor, Carnegie Mellon University
USENIX Liaison
Casey Henderson, USENIX Association
Steering Committee
Lujo Bauer, Carnegie Mellon University
Konstantin Beznosov, University of British Columbia
Robert Biddle, Carleton University
Sonia Chiasson, Carleton University
Sunny Consolvo, Google
Patrick Gage Kelley, Google
Jaeyeon Jung, Samsung Electronics
Apu Kapadia, Indiana University Bloomington
Rob Reeder, Google
Heather Richter Lipford, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Matthew Smith, University of Bonn, Fraunhofer FKIE
Rick Wash, Michigan State University
Mary Ellen Zurko, MIT Lincoln Laboratory