Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/cscw-review-process
Use when interpreting where a CSCW paper stands in review — the PACMHCI journal model's decision vocabulary (Revise for External Review, Revise and Resubmit, Conditional Accept), same-reviewer re-review, the rolling editorial board, and what each outcome statistically implied in the last cycle.
Passed 18 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 3 of 23 without it.
and 21 more in the full report
15 fixed3 passed either way5 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 15 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
What is the advertised decision time window for papers submitted under CSCW's rolling review model?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The response specifies the advertised decision window as roughly 3-4 months from submission. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
CSCW reviews papers the way a journal does, wearing a conference's name. Decisions come in revision vocabulary, revised papers return to the same reviewers, and — under the rolling model launched for CSCW 2027+ — the process is run by an editorial board (Editors-in-Chief Amy Bruckman and Eric Gilbert, with handling editors per methodological track) rather than a per-year program committee. Reading the process correctly changes how you write, revise, and wait.
| Decision | What it means | What it asks of you |
|---|---|---|
| Revise for External Review | Screeners saw promise but flaws worth fixing before reviewers are spent on it | A focused repair on a short clock; treat as a free pre-review |
| Revise and Resubmit (R&R) | The default serious outcome: reviewers want a substantially revised paper, which they will re-read | The full revision campaign (cscw-author-response) |
| Conditional Accept with Minor Changes | The paper is in, pending verifiable edits | Execute precisely; do not renegotiate scope |
| Accept | Done; production begins | cscw-camera-ready |
| Reject | The venue is declining this version | Post-mortem before any re-entry |
Calibration from the final fixed cycle (May 2025, feeding CSCW 2026): after external review, only 33.8% of papers received a final decision — 66.2% received R&R. In the second round, 152 papers were accepted (61 outright in March 2026, 91 via minor changes) and 44 were rejected. Two structural lessons:
Unlike rebuttal-based conferences, CSCW's revision loop returns to people who remember the first version. Consequences:
test cases passed, vs 3 / 23 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.