IACR Transactions on Symmetric Cryptology (ToSC) is a forum for original results in all areas of symmetric cryptography, including the design and analysis of block ciphers, stream ciphers, encryption schemes, hash functions, message authentication codes, (cryptographic) permutations, authenticated encryption schemes, cryptanalysis and evaluation tools, and security issues and solutions regarding their implementation. ToSC implements an open-access journal/conference hybrid model following some other communities in computer science. All articles undergo a journal-style reviewing process and accepted papers are published in gold open access (in our case the Creative Commons License CC-BY 4.0). The review procedures that we have followed strictly adhere to the traditions of the journal world. Full papers are assigned to the members of the Editorial Board. These members write detailed and careful reviews (usually without relying on subreviewers). Moreover, we have had a rebuttal phase, allowing authors to respond to the review comments before the final decisions. If necessary, the review process enables further interactions between the authors and the reviewers, mediated by the Co-Editors-in-Chief. Detailed discussions among the reviewers lead to one of the following four decisions for each paper: accept, in which case the authors submit their final camera-ready manuscript after editorial corrections; accept with minor revision, which means that the authors revise their manuscript and go through one or more iterations and reviews of the manuscript until the comments have been addressed in a satisfactory way; major revision, which means that the authors are requested to make major changes to their manuscript before submitting again in one of the next rounds; and reject, which means that the manuscript is deemed to be not suitable for publication in ToSC. The last four issues we have tried to refine the method (new for a community used to only accept or reject decisions) and decide in a more fair way when to assign major revisions. The review process shares with the high quality conferences that it is double-blind and adheres to a strict timing; but unlike a traditional conference, there are multiple submission deadlines per year. Each paper received at least three reviews; for submissions by Editorial Board members this was increased to at least four. Overall, we are very pleased with the quality and quantity of submissions, the detailed review reports written by the reviewers and the substantial efforts by the authors to further improve the quality of their work. We think that the review process leads to an increased quality of the papers that are published. The papers selected by the Editorial Board for publication in the last four issues were presented at the conference Fast Software Encryption (FSE). This gave the authors the opportunity to advertise their results and engage in discussions on further work. we received 33 submissions, out of which 10 were accepted, 4 of these after minor revisions; the number of papers that received a major revision decision was 4. For Volume 2017, Issue 3, we received 32 submissions, out of which 13 were accepted, 9 of these after minor revisions; the number of papers that received a major revision