recsys-review-process
Use when explaining or planning around ACM RecSys peer review — the mutually-anonymous model with at least three PC members and a Senior PC overseer, the rebuttal phase, how the reproducibility-crisis culture shapes reviewer priorities, the offline-versus-online evaluation lens, and how acceptance leads to ACM Digital Library publication.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill recsys-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.
# RecSys Review Process Use this to reason about review-stage strategy. Reopen the current Call for Contributions, the committees page, and any reviewer guidelines before making process claims — mechanics are cycle-specific. ## Process model - RecSys review is **mutually anonymous** (double-blind). Each submission is read by **at least three PC members** and overseen by a **Senior PC member** who synthesizes the recommendation. - There is an author **rebuttal** phase (2026: June 4-9) for a short clarifying narrative. - Reviewers weigh recommendation novelty, evaluation validity, reproducibility, clarity, and relevance to the recommender community — not raw metric wins alone. - The most useful reply is a decision-focused clarification that gives the Senior PC a clean rationale for acceptance or rejection. - Accepted papers are published in the **ACM Digital Library**, so camera-ready compliance and metadata matter as much as the initial decision. ## Who reviews here, and what they distrust - The pool is a **single-domain recommender community**: expect at least one reviewer who has internalized the field's reproducibility debate and will probe baseline tuning line by line. - Because
- Process model
- Who reviews here, and what they distrust
- Scoring leverage table
- Stage-by-stage realism
- Vignette: reading a split decision
- Output format
What does the recsys-review-process skill do?
Use when explaining or planning around ACM RecSys peer review — the mutually-anonymous model with at least three PC members and a Senior PC overseer, the rebuttal phase, how the reproducibility-crisis culture shapes reviewer priorities, the offline-versus-online evaluation lens, and how acceptance leads to ACM Digital Library publication.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill recsys-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.