HotNets 2026 proposes a broad scope and review-process overhaul

A paper posted to arXiv on June 24 says ACM HotNets 2026 is being redesigned as a test case for broader workshop scope and a more discussion-heavy review process.

The proposal, A Backward-Compatible Protocol Upgrade for HotNets, says the workshop will expand beyond narrowly technical systems papers to include perspective and community-facing contributions. It also says HotNets 2026 will use separate evaluation criteria for technical papers and perspective papers.

The paper is authored by Paolo Costa and Michael Schapira. It frames the changes as an experiment meant to answer pressure on the traditional workshop model, including rising submission volume and changes in how networking research is conducted and shared.

A broader scope for submissions

HotNets has long been known as a venue for agenda-setting networking ideas, but the proposal says that format no longer fits every kind of contribution the organizers want to attract.

Under the 2026 plan, the workshop would explicitly welcome perspective papers alongside technical work. The paper also describes those perspective submissions as community-facing contributions, signaling that the organizers want the workshop to make room for more than new systems designs or protocol ideas.

That change matters because it would widen the type of work authors can bring to the venue. Instead of judging every submission by the same technical standard, the organizers want distinct criteria for different paper types.

A different review model

The proposal says HotNets 2026 would move away from fine-grained numerical scores and toward a simpler support-based decision model.

Reviewers would still write independent reviews first, but the process would then shift into discussion. The paper says the goal is to have concise initial reviews, followed by discussion and a synthesis rather than a score-driven verdict.

The organizers also say there will not be a full online program committee meeting. Instead, most deliberation would happen per paper on HotCRP, with targeted synchronous conversations only when they are needed.

That is a meaningful departure from the usual workshop review workflow. The proposal suggests the new format is meant to be more collaborative and less dependent on ranking papers by narrow score differences.

What the workshop program could look like

The paper says accepted work would not simply be folded into a standard presentation track.

Instead, HotNets 2026 would use a discussion-focused program built around formats such as posters, demos, breakouts, plenary sessions, panels, and debates. The idea is to make the workshop itself more interactive and to treat discussion as part of the event’s core value.

The proposal presents that design as a way to better fit both technical and perspective papers. It also suggests the format could help the workshop surface disagreement, context, and practical implications rather than only polished final results.

Why the organizers say the change is needed

The paper argues that the traditional model is under strain. It points to growing submission volume and shifting research practice as reasons HotNets should try a different approach.

That argument matters because HotNets is often seen as a workshop that can influence broader networking norms. A successful change there could shape how later venues think about early-stage research, review design, and the mix of ideas they are willing to hear.

The proposal also says the 2026 edition is meant as an experiment that could offer lessons for other conferences and workshops. In that sense, the document is not just describing one event; it is trying to test a process that might spread.

GenAI is part of the experiment

The paper says the organizers are also exploring responsible uses of generative AI in reviewing and research dissemination.

That makes the proposal notable beyond scope and scoring. It places AI-assisted review and communication inside the same experiment as the broader review overhaul, which could influence how networking venues think about GenAI in scholarly workflows.

The document does not present those AI uses as settled policy. Instead, it frames them as another area for experimentation and feedback.

What happens next

The paper explicitly asks for community feedback and says a follow-up report will summarize reactions and lessons learned.

That leaves an important open question: whether the official HotNets 2026 call for papers matches the proposal exactly, or whether the organizers revise parts of it before the workshop cycle advances further.

For now, the June 24 arXiv posting is the clearest public signal of what HotNets 2026 is trying to become. The next checkpoint is the official workshop site or CFP, which should show whether the proposed submission categories, review criteria, and deadlines are adopted as written.