wsdm-review-process
Use when reasoning about how WSDM reviews and decides papers - the hybrid single/double-blind architecture with Associate-Chair metadata visibility, at-least-three PC reviews plus senior PC assessment, the absence of a rebuttal phase, the August-to-October window, and what ~17% selectivity at a single-track venue implies.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill wsdm-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.
# WSDM Review Process Model the machinery that turns an August submission into an October decision. Understanding it changes writing decisions months earlier, because WSDM's process has two properties that most neighboring venues lack: authors never get to reply, and the venue's blinding design is unusually explicit about who sees what. Process details are re-set by each edition's chairs - the 2026-cycle anchors below are for calibration, not prediction. ## The pipeline ```text Aug 7 abstract registered -> bidding/assignment signal for the PC Aug 14 full paper (AoE) -> desk screening (format, scope, anonymity, ethics section present) Aug-Oct at least 3 PC reviews -> written independently; no author contact + senior PC (SPC) -> meta-assessment, consensus-building Associate Chairs -> see metadata incl. authorship, manage COI Oct 23 notification (2026 anchor) camera-ready + ACM production (dates 待核实 per edition) Feb single-track conference ``` Roughly ten weeks from paper to decision - among the fastest of the major mining venues, which is precisely why there is no room for a rebuttal round. ## Who sees what: the hybrid-blind design The 2025 and 2026 CFPs describe "a combination of si
- The pipeline
- Who sees what: the hybrid-blind design
- Reading the reviewer pool
- No rebuttal: decision dynamics
- Decoding review language after notification
- Selectivity arithmetic
- Output format
What does the wsdm-review-process skill do?
Use when reasoning about how WSDM reviews and decides papers - the hybrid single/double-blind architecture with Associate-Chair metadata visibility, at-least-three PC reviews plus senior PC assessment, the absence of a rebuttal phase, the August-to-October window, and what ~17% selectivity at a single-track venue implies.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill wsdm-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.