Eacl review process

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/EACL-Skills/skills/eacl-review-process

Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。

Install

npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill eacl-review-process

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

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.

SKILL.md

3.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

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 offer is an acceptance, not a rejection — weigh it as such (see eacl-topic-selection for the accept-Findings calculus).

The single-cycle consequence for routing

Because an edition like EACL 2027 draws from one ARR cycle with no fallback, a package that misses commitment or is rejected cannot simply wait for "the next EACL cycle" — the next opportunity is a different conference. Plan re-routing to a sibling *ACL venue (ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, AACL) as a first-class option, carrying the ARR reviews forward.

Confidentiality and conduct

ARR review is confidential; do not solicit, share, or discuss reviews outside the process.
Reviewers and authors are bound by the ACL code of conduct; harassment or coercion (including citation coercion) is reportable.

Ethics escalation

If a submission raises an ethics concern:
  reviewer/AE flags it -> ethics review track -> may condition or block acceptance
Authors: address ethics/data-governance issues in the paper and checklist up front;
         an unresolved flag can override otherwise-positive reviews.

Reading an outcome

A reject with substantive reviews is a resource: the ARR reviews travel with a resubmission to another venue, so a clean rebuttal and revision plan are not wasted.
A borderline meta-review often turns on the honesty of Limitations and the strength of the rebuttal — both are within author control.

Output format

[Pipeline position] <review / rebuttal / meta-review / commitment / decision>
[Meta-review read] <what the action editor likely concludes>
[Findings scenario] <accept-Findings vs push-for-main vs re-route>
[Ethics/conduct flags] <any, with handling>
[Next step] <commit here / re-route to sibling venue with ARR reviews>