How do I install the Eacl Review Process skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add brycewang-stanford/eacl-review-process in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Eacl Review Process safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Capability flags: docs only. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Eacl Review Process?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Eacl Review Process free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Eacl Review Process?

brycewang-stanford (@brycewang-stanford) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Eacl Review Process by brycewang-stanford

Name: Eacl Review Process
Rating: 4.666666666666667 (3 reviews)
Author: brycewang-stanford

Eacl Review Process

Use when reasoning about the EACL review pipeline through ACL Rolling Review, covering reviewers and the action editor's meta-review, the commitment step where EACL decides main versus Findings versus reject, ethics escalation, confidentiality, and when to route a reviewed package to a sibling *ACL venue.

brycewang-stanford Updated Sep 8, 2026 1k repo stars

File contents

EACL Review Process

Use this to model how an EACL decision actually gets made, so advice matches the machinery. EACL outsources reviewing to ACL Rolling Review and keeps only the final decision: a paper is reviewed in an ARR cycle, receives an action-editor meta-review, and is then committed to EACL, where senior area chairs and program chairs sort commitments into main, Findings of ACL: EACL, or reject. Reopen the current ARR and EACL pages before relying on specifics.

The pipeline, stage by stage

Stage	Who acts	Output
ARR review	Reviewers (usually 3)	Scores + written reviews
Rebuttal	Authors	Responses (see `eacl-author-response`)
Meta-review	Action editor	Synthesized assessment
Commitment	Authors	Package committed to EACL
Venue decision	EACL SACs / PCs	Main / Findings / reject

The meta-review is the pivot: EACL's committee reads it, not the raw reviews in isolation, so the rebuttal should aim to shape it.

Findings is a real outcome

Findings of ACL: EACL is archival, Anthology-published, and decided at commitment; notification is simultaneous with the main track. A Findings offer is an acceptance, not a rejection — weigh it as such (see eacl-topic-selection for the accept-Findings calculus).

The single-cycle consequence for routing

Because an edition like EACL 2027 draws from one ARR cycle with no fallback, a package that misses commitment or is rejected cannot simply wait for "the next EACL cycle" — the next opportunity is a different conference. Plan re-routing to a sibling *ACL venue (ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, AACL) as a first-class option, carrying the ARR reviews forward.

Confidentiality and conduct

ARR review is confidential; do not solicit, share, or discuss reviews outside the process.
Reviewers and authors are bound by the ACL code of conduct; harassment or coercion (including citation coercion) is reportable.

Ethics escalation

If a submission raises an ethics concern:
  reviewer/AE flags it -> ethics review track -> may condition or block acceptance
Authors: address ethics/data-governance issues in the paper and checklist up front;
         an unresolved flag can override otherwise-positive reviews.

Reading an outcome

A reject with substantive reviews is a resource: the ARR reviews travel with a resubmission to another venue, so a clean rebuttal and revision plan are not wasted.
A borderline meta-review often turns on the honesty of Limitations and the strength of the rebuttal — both are within author control.

Output format

[Pipeline position] <review / rebuttal / meta-review / commitment / decision>
[Meta-review read] <what the action editor likely concludes>
[Findings scenario] <accept-Findings vs push-for-main vs re-route>
[Ethics/conduct flags] <any, with handling>
[Next step] <commit here / re-route to sibling venue with ARR reviews>

---name: eacl-review-processdescription: Use when reasoning about the EACL review pipeline through ACL Rolling Review, covering reviewers and the action editor's meta-review, the commitment step where EACL decides main versus Findings versus reject, ethics escalation, confidentiality, and when to route a reviewed package to a sibling *ACL venue.---# EACL Review ProcessUse this to model how an EACL decision actually gets made, so advice matches the machinery.EACL outsources reviewing to **ACL Rolling Review** and keeps only the final decision: a paperis reviewed in an ARR cycle, receives an **action-editor meta-review**, and is then **committed**to EACL, where senior area chairs and program chairs sort commitments into **main**, **Findingsof ACL: EACL**, or **reject**. Reopen the current ARR and EACL pages before relying on specifics.## The pipeline, stage by stage| Stage | Who acts | Output ||---|---|---|| ARR review | Reviewers (usually 3) | Scores + written reviews || Rebuttal | Authors | Responses (see `eacl-author-response`) || Meta-review | Action editor | Synthesized assessment || Commitment | Authors | Package committed to EACL || Venue decision | EACL SACs / PCs | Main / Findings / reject |The **meta-review is the pivot**: EACL's committee reads it, not the raw reviews in isolation, sothe rebuttal should aim to shape it.## Findings is a real outcome- **Findings of ACL: EACL** is archival, Anthology-published, and decided at commitment; notification is simultaneous with the main track. A Findings offer is an acceptance, not a rejection — weigh it as such (see `eacl-topic-selection` for the accept-Findings calculus).## The single-cycle consequence for routing- Because an edition like EACL 2027 draws from **one ARR cycle with no fallback**, a package that misses commitment or is rejected cannot simply wait for "the next EACL cycle" — the next opportunity is a **different conference**. Plan re-routing to a sibling *ACL venue (ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, AACL) as a first-class option, carrying the ARR reviews forward.## Confidentiality and conduct- ARR review is confidential; do not solicit, share, or discuss reviews outside the process.- Reviewers and authors are bound by the ACL code of conduct; harassment or coercion (including citation coercion) is reportable.## Ethics escalation```textIf a submission raises an ethics concern: reviewer/AE flags it -> ethics review track -> may condition or block acceptanceAuthors: address ethics/data-governance issues in the paper and checklist up front; an unresolved flag can override otherwise-positive reviews.```## Reading an outcome- A **reject with substantive reviews** is a resource: the ARR reviews travel with a resubmission to another venue, so a clean rebuttal and revision plan are not wasted.- A **borderline meta-review** often turns on the honesty of Limitations and the strength of the rebuttal — both are within author control.## Output format```text[Pipeline position] <review / rebuttal / meta-review / commitment / decision>[Meta-review read] <what the action editor likely concludes>[Findings scenario] <accept-Findings vs push-for-main vs re-route>[Ethics/conduct flags] <any, with handling>[Next step] <commit here / re-route to sibling venue with ARR reviews>```

Frequently asked questions