Acl Review Process
Use when reasoning about how an ACL paper travels through ACL Rolling Review and...
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acl-review-process -g -a claude-code -y- Repository
- brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3k
- Category
- Engineering
- Updated
- 1mo ago
- License
- MIT
- Context cost
- Lightabout 1,449 tokens
- Runs scripts
- No, instructions only
What it does
Use when reasoning about how an ACL paper travels through ACL Rolling Review and conference commitment, covering reviewer and area-chair roles, meta-reviews, the commitment decision by senior area chairs and program chairs, Findings versus main-conference outcomes, ethics review escalation, and resubmission strategy across cycles.
ACL Review Process
Use this to model where an ACL paper actually is and who decides what next. ACL decoupled reviewing from the conference: ARR produces the review package; the conference consumes it. Confirm current mechanics at aclrollingreview.org/reviewing, since cycle structure has changed repeatedly (most recently to 10-week cycles in 2025).
The pipeline, stage by stage
- ARR cycle intake: submission on OpenReview to a dated cycle (e.g., ARR January 2026); checks for format, Limitations, checklist, anonymity.
- Review: at least three reviewers score and write reviews.
- Author response + discussion: authors reply; reviewers discuss and may
update reviews (see
acl-author-response). - Meta-review: the action editor / area chair synthesizes reviews into a meta-review with a recommendation. Notably, ARR senior area chairs do not make accept/reject recommendations, that authority sits with the venue.
- Commitment: authors choose whether and where to send the finished package, ACL, or another *ACL venue accepting that cycle.
- Venue decision: the conference's senior area chairs and program chairs read reviews + meta-review and decide: main conference, Findings, or reject.
- Ethics branch: papers flagged during review go to an ethics committee, which can require revisions or recommend rejection on ACL Code of Ethics grounds independent of technical merit.
Who decides what
| Actor | Controls | Cannot do |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewer | Review text, scores, discussion updates | Accept or reject anything |
| AC / action editor | Meta-review, review-issue handling | Bind the conference's decision |
| Author | Response, revision, where/whether to commit | Change reviews after the cycle closes |
| Venue SACs + PCs | Main/Findings/reject from the ARR package | Re-run the reviewing itself |
| Ethics committee | Ethics-based conditions or rejection | Judge technical contribution |
