Neurips review process
Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/NeurIPS-Skills/skills/neurips-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。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill neurips-review-processAssembled 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 explaining or diagnosing the NeurIPS main-track review process, including OpenReview, reviewer and AC roles, contribution-type review, ethics flags, reciprocal reviewing, discussion, and LLM-review policy.
SKILL.md
2.1 KB, 396 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
NeurIPS Review Process
Use this skill to reason about what reviewers and ACs are likely to do with a submission. Do not use it to infer acceptance odds from folklore; use it to identify decision-relevant weaknesses.
Process model
- Reviews happen in OpenReview under double blind.
- Reviewers are asked to evaluate quality, clarity, significance, and the submission's declared contribution type.
- ACs coordinate reviewers, handle conflicts and quality issues, write or supervise meta-reviews, and make recommendations.
- Ethics concerns can be flagged and routed to ethics reviewers; severe cases can affect decisions.
- Authors who are also reviewers or ACs face reciprocal-reviewing obligations; gross negligence can create sanctions affecting their own submissions.
Reviewer mental model
Reviewers are overloaded cross-area specialists. They need to see:
- what the contribution is;
- why it is new relative to close NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR/ACL/CVPR/KDD-style work;
- whether the evidence supports the exact claim;
- whether limitations, safety, data, and reproducibility are handled responsibly;
- whether the paper can be trusted as a scientific artifact.
Diagnosis workflow
- Map each likely review concern to quality, clarity, significance, ethics, reproducibility, or fit.
- Predict which concerns the AC can use in a meta-review.
- Decide whether the problem is fixable by clarification, extra analysis, better framing, or re-routing.
- For author response, prioritize issues that change decision logic rather than issues that only improve tone.
Output format
[Likely review split] enthusiastic / borderline / skeptical
[AC-level issue] <one issue most likely to drive the meta-review>
[Ethics/reproducibility flags] <none or list>
[Response strategy] clarify / concede / add small result / reroute