sigir-review-process
Use when reasoning about how SIGIR evaluates submissions — the per-track OpenReview machinery, double-blind full/short review versus single-anonymous Resources review, the PC-member nomination duty, what IR reviewers score (evaluation validity above novelty claims), the ACM Peer Review Policy layer, and how decisions land.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill sigir-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.
# SIGIR Review Process SIGIR review is track-partitioned: each track (full, short, resources, reproducibility, perspectives, industry, ...) runs its own OpenReview group with its own reviewer pool, anonymity regime, and calendar. Advice that treats "SIGIR review" as one process misroutes authors. This skill models the machinery and the reviewer psychology; exact per-cycle mechanics (rebuttal windows, score scales, meta-review forms) were not publicly verifiable for 2026 and must be read off your own submission's OpenReview timeline (待核实). ## The machinery | Element | What was verified for 2026 | What to confirm per cycle | |---|---|---| | Platform | OpenReview, per-track venue groups | Group id for your track | | Full/short anonymity | Double-blind, fully anonymized | Preprint policy details | | Resources anonymity | **Single-anonymous** (reviewers see authors) | — | | Reviewer sourcing | Full-paper teams nominate one author as PC member per submission | Whether shorts/other tracks share the duty | | Policy layer | ACM Peer Review Policy; automated compliance checks reserved | Cycle-specific screening tools | | Decision structure | Not extractable | Rebuttal? meta-reviews? conditio
- The machinery
- What SIGIR reviewers actually score
- Reviewer archetypes and what convinces each
- Reading a decision packet
- Reading scores like a chair
- Confidentiality and conduct
- After the decision
- Output format
What does the sigir-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how SIGIR evaluates submissions — the per-track OpenReview machinery, double-blind full/short review versus single-anonymous Resources review, the PC-member nomination duty, what IR reviewers score (evaluation validity above novelty claims), the ACM Peer Review Policy layer, and how decisions land.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill sigir-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.