acmmm-review-process
Use when reasoning about the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) review pipeline — thematic-area routing to reviewers and area chairs, the OpenReview double-blind process and its single-blind track exceptions, the optional anonymous rebuttal, the meta-review and decision, and the oral/poster and award tiers, and where an author actually has leverage.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acmmm-review-process --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# ACM MM Review Process Use this to build an accurate mental model of how an ACM Multimedia paper is judged, so strategy targets the points where an author can move the outcome and not the points where they cannot. ## The pipeline 1. **Submission + thematic area.** The paper enters OpenReview under a chosen thematic area, which routes it to a matching reviewer pool and area chair. 2. **Assignment.** Reviewers and an AC are assigned; a mismatched thematic area is where papers get reviewers who cannot judge the contribution. 3. **Reviews.** Reviewers assess novelty, cross-modal soundness, evidence (including user studies where relevant), and reproducibility. 4. **Rebuttal.** An **optional, anonymous** author response addresses reviews; new external links are not allowed. 5. **Discussion + meta-review.** Reviewers and the AC discuss; the AC writes a meta-review and recommendation. 6. **Decision + tiers.** Accept/reject, with accepted papers sorted into presentation tiers (oral vs. poster) and award consideration. ## Where leverage exists | Stage | Author leverage | Reality | |---|---|---| | Thematic-area choice | High | You pick who reviews you — choose the area that can judge the con
- The pipeline
- Where leverage exists
- Reading a review set
- Double-blind and its exceptions
- What the rebuttal cannot do
- Reading scores and the meta-review
- The dates that constrain strategy
- Confidentiality and conduct
- Output format
What does the acmmm-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) review pipeline — thematic-area routing to reviewers and area chairs, the OpenReview double-blind process and its single-blind track exceptions, the optional anonymous rebuttal, the meta-review and decision, and the oral/poster and award tiers, and where an author actually has leverage.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acmmm-review-process --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, a repository with 909 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.