# Acl Review Process

Use when reasoning about how an ACL paper travels through ACL Rolling Review and...

- Repository: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills (1346 stars)
- Category: Engineering
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-09-27
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acl-review-process -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acl-review-process -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acl-review-process -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acl-review-process -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`

## Description

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.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# 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

1. **ARR cycle intake**: submission on OpenReview to a dated cycle (e.g.,
   ARR January 2026); checks for format, Limitations, checklist, anonymity.
2. **Review**: at least three reviewers score and write reviews.
3. **Author response + discussion**: authors reply; reviewers discuss and may
   update reviews (see `acl-author-response`).
4. **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.
5. **Commitment**: authors choose whether and where to send the finished
   package, ACL, or another \*ACL venue accepting that cycle.
6. **Venue decision**: the conference's senior area chairs and program chairs
   read reviews + meta-review and decide: main conference, Findings, or reject.
7. **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 |

The rest: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/ACL-Skills/skills/acl-review-process/SKILL.md