Use when targeting European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for information retrieval.
European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR)
Conference positioning
European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR) is a top computer-science conference venue for IR methods, evaluation, search interaction, recommender systems, and retrieval applications. It rewards a retrieval paper suited to the European IR community and rigorous evaluation culture. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.
When to trigger
The author names ECIR / European Conference on Information Retrieval as the target venue.
A manuscript in IR methods needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
Scope & topic fit
Core fit: IR methods, evaluation, search interaction, recommender systems, and retrieval applications.
Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
The paper should explain why the result matters to ECIR's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
Venue-specific calibration
Reviewer lens: Treat ECIR as a information retrieval venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: IR methods, evaluation, search interaction, recommender systems, and retrieval applications.
Official anchor domain: www.ecir2026.eu. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
Route to ECIR when the paper is information retrieval and the European IR conference community
or cycle is the best fit.
Compare SIGIR for flagship IR, CHIIR for interactive IR, CIKM for broader
information/knowledge management, and ACL/EMNLP when NLP modeling is central.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
What ECIR is. The European Conference on Information Retrieval (BCS IRSG-backed, Springer LNCS) — the European IR venue, known for strong early-career work.
vs SIGIR. SIGIR (ACM) is the global IR flagship; ECIR is the European counterpart — same field, route by cycle/community.
vs CIKM / CHIIR / TREC. CIKM is IR+KM+DB, CHIIR is interactive IR, TREC is an evaluation campaign.
Method & evidence bar
Use task-appropriate baselines, multiple datasets or languages when the claim is broad, and error analysis that explains model behavior.
For LLM work, control for data leakage, prompt sensitivity, evaluation contamination, and human-evaluation reliability.
For resources, document annotation, licensing, demographics, quality control, and intended use.
For ECIR, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a retrieval paper suited to the European IR community and rigorous evaluation culture.
Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
State the language phenomenon, task, or system behavior before the model name.
Connect examples to measured errors; reviewers dislike anecdotal examples presented as evidence.
Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at ECIR, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
Related work includes the nearest current-cycle information retrieval papers and explains the technical delta.
The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
Common desk-reject triggers
Evaluation that is only a prompt table or cherry-picked generation examples.
Missing dataset documentation, licensing, or annotation reliability.
Claims of general language understanding from narrow English-only benchmarks.
Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving ECIR reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses ECIR's bar, compare against annual-meeting-of-the-association-for-computational-linguistics / conference-on-empirical-methods-in-natural-language-processing / north-american-chapter-of-the-association-for-computational-linguistics / european-chapter-of-the-association-for-computational-linguistics. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
1---2name: european-conference-on-information-retrieval3description: Use when targeting European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for information retrieval.4---567# European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR)
89## Conference positioning
1011European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR) is a top computer-science conference venue for IR methods, evaluation, search interaction, recommender systems, and retrieval applications. It rewards a retrieval paper suited to the European IR community and rigorous evaluation culture. Treat this skill as a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
1213Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in `../../resources/conference-roster.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`.
1415## When to trigger
1617- The author names ECIR / European Conference on Information Retrieval as the target venue.
18- A manuscript in IR methods needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
19- The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
20- The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
2122## Scope & topic fit
2324- Core fit: IR methods, evaluation, search interaction, recommender systems, and retrieval applications.
25- Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
26- The paper should explain why the result matters to ECIR's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
27- Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
28- If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
2930## Venue-specific calibration
3132- Reviewer lens: Treat ECIR as a information retrieval venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
33- Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
34- Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: IR methods, evaluation, search interaction, recommender systems, and retrieval applications.
35- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: methods, evaluation, search, interaction, recommender, retrieval, applications, venue-specific, contribution, information, ecir2026.
36- Official anchor domain: www.ecir2026.eu. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
3738## Close-neighbor routing guardrail
3940- Route to ECIR when the paper is information retrieval and the European IR conference community
41 or cycle is the best fit.
42- Compare SIGIR for flagship IR, CHIIR for interactive IR, CIKM for broader
43 information/knowledge management, and ACL/EMNLP when NLP modeling is central.
4445## What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
4647- **What ECIR is.** The **European Conference on Information Retrieval** (BCS IRSG-backed, Springer LNCS) — the European IR venue, known for strong early-career work.
48- **vs SIGIR.** SIGIR (ACM) is the global IR flagship; ECIR is the European counterpart — same field, route by cycle/community.
49- **vs CIKM / CHIIR / TREC.** CIKM is IR+KM+DB, CHIIR is interactive IR, TREC is an evaluation campaign.
5051## Method & evidence bar
5253- Use task-appropriate baselines, multiple datasets or languages when the claim is broad, and error analysis that explains model behavior.
54- For LLM work, control for data leakage, prompt sensitivity, evaluation contamination, and human-evaluation reliability.
55- For resources, document annotation, licensing, demographics, quality control, and intended use.
56- For ECIR, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a retrieval paper suited to the European IR community and rigorous evaluation culture.
57- Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
5859## Structure & house style
6061- State the language phenomenon, task, or system behavior before the model name.
62- Connect examples to measured errors; reviewers dislike anecdotal examples presented as evidence.
63- Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
64- The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
65- Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
6667## Official-cycle checklist
6869- Open the live official venue page: https://www.ecir2026.eu/
70- Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
71- Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
72- Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
73- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
7475## Pre-submission self-check
7677- [ ] One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at ECIR, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
78- [ ] The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
79- [ ] Related work includes the nearest current-cycle information retrieval papers and explains the technical delta.
80- [ ] The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
81- [ ] The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
8283## Common desk-reject triggers
8485- Evaluation that is only a prompt table or cherry-picked generation examples.
86- Missing dataset documentation, licensing, or annotation reliability.
87- Claims of general language understanding from narrow English-only benchmarks.
88- Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
89- A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving ECIR reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
9091## Re-routing decision
9293If the paper misses ECIR's bar, compare against `annual-meeting-of-the-association-for-computational-linguistics` / `conference-on-empirical-methods-in-natural-language-processing` / `north-american-chapter-of-the-association-for-computational-linguistics` / `european-chapter-of-the-association-for-computational-linguistics`. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
9495## Output format
9697```text
98[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
99[Target] European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR)
100[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
101[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
102[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
103[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
104[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
105```
106107---
108109**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Computer-Science-Conference-Skills/skills/european-conference-on-information-retrieval/SKILL.md`
Run npx skillmds add thedixitjain/european-conference-on-information-retrieval 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.
Use when targeting European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for information retrieval. It is listed under AI & ML on SkillMD.
This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Capability flags: makes network calls. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.
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.
Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.
thedixitjain (@thedixitjain) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.