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.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill eacl-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.
# 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 offe
- The pipeline, stage by stage
- Findings is a real outcome
- The single-cycle consequence for routing
- Confidentiality and conduct
- Ethics escalation
- Reading an outcome
- Output format
What does the eacl-review-process skill do?
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.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill eacl-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.