Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

acl-camera-ready

Use when preparing an accepted ACL main-conference or Findings paper for camera-ready, covering the extra content page, de-anonymization and acknowledgements, AI-assistance disclosure, keeping the Limitations section, ACL Anthology metadata and CC BY 4.0 publication, meta-review-driven edits, and presentation-mode logistics.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md6.2 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

ACL Camera Ready

Use this after ACL (or Findings of ACL) acceptance. Camera-ready quality controls how the paper looks forever in the ACL Anthology, which is the permanent open-access record. For ACL 2026 the camera-ready deadline was April 19, 2026 — confirm the current edition's date in the acceptance email before planning anything.

The extra page and what it is for

  • Accepted *ACL papers traditionally receive one additional content page: long papers up to 9 pages, short papers up to 5. The page exists to address reviewer and meta-review comments, not to smuggle in a new contribution.
  • Spend it in priority order: fixes the meta-review asked for, clarifications reviewers requested, then de-anonymization overhead (author block, acknowledgements) which consumes real space.
  • References remain unlimited; the Limitations section remains mandatory in the camera-ready and still sits outside the page count.

De-anonymization pass

  • Restore authors, affiliations, and acknowledgements; convert third-person self-citations ("Smith showed") back to natural first person where clearer.
  • Replace anonymous supplement links with the permanent public repository, dataset page, or model card; test every URL logged out.
  • Add the funding and AI-assistance acknowledgements: ACL policy requires generative-AI use beyond polishing to be disclosed, with details in the Acknowledgements matching your Responsible NLP checklist answers.

Anthology-facing metadata

ItemWhy it matters at ACLCommon error
Title/abstract in the formBecomes the Anthology landing pageUnicode or LaTeX macros pasted raw
Author names + orderPermanent citation record, BibTeX for everyoneName spelled differently than prior papers
PDF fonts embeddedAnthology archival requirementMissing Type-1/TrueType embedding from figures
License acceptanceAnthology publishes under CC BY 4.0 (post-2016 policy)Assuming you can restrict reuse later
Video/poster uploadsLinked from the Anthology page when providedSkipped, losing visibility

Publication in the Anthology is open access with no author fee; ACL's cost model is conference registration, not APCs.

Integrating reviewer-mandated changes

Work from the meta-review, not memory:

  1. Extract every "should," "must," and "the authors agreed to" from the meta-review and discussion thread into a checklist.
  2. Map each to an edit: new sentence, moved table, scoped claim, added citation. The accepted contribution must not silently grow — a stronger claim than reviewers evaluated is an integrity problem, not a bonus.
  3. Keep section and table numbering stable where possible so the review record still points at the right objects.
  4. Re-run the checklist consistency pass: if you promised error bars or a contamination note in discussion, the camera-ready must contain it.

Main conference vs Findings logistics

  • Findings papers are full peer-reviewed publications in the Anthology but are typically not part of the main oral program; presentation options (Findings poster sessions, workshop presentation slots, videos) vary per edition — check the current conference's Findings instructions rather than assuming.
  • Registration and presentation expectations differ by track and edition; ACL 2026 ran as a hybrid conference in San Diego (July 2-7, 2026). Verify the current attendance requirement before booking or skipping travel.

Camera-ready week runbook

Day 1: meta-review edit checklist; claim-scope audit
Day 2: de-anonymize; acknowledgements incl. funding + AI disclosure
Day 3: public artifact links live; README + license on the repo
Day 4: rebuild with final style; font embedding + page-count check
Day 5: metadata form; abstract matches PDF; submit and archive everything

Common camera-ready rejections and rework requests

  • Unembedded fonts from matplotlib or Inkscape figures — regenerate with embedding forced rather than patching the PDF.
  • Title case mismatch between the form and the PDF, or LaTeX math left in the plain-text abstract field.
  • Author list drift: an author added or reordered after review needs chair approval, not a silent metadata edit.
  • Limitations section deleted "for space" — it is still required and still free; removing it can bounce the paper at publication checks.
  • Non-resolving artifact URLs: the Anthology page will outlive your lab server; prefer archived, versioned hosting for the link of record.

If the paper landed in Findings

  • The Anthology volume is "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL <year>" — cite and list it that way; miscrediting your own venue tier propagates into others' bibliographies.
  • Camera-ready mechanics are the same as main-conference papers, extra page included; deadlines are usually shared — confirm in the decision letter.
  • Ask early which presentation options the edition offers Findings papers (poster session, affiliated workshop slot, video); slots can require separate sign-up shortly after notification.

Presentation assets riding the same deadline window

  • Poster/slide templates, video-upload requirements, and session-format details arrive with or shortly after camera-ready instructions; the video deadline is often earlier than authors expect.
  • Registration typically must be completed by a named author before the paper is scheduled — check the decision email for the binding rule.
  • Book the error budget: font, metadata, and form rejections bounce back days later, so submitting on the deadline hour forfeits the retry.

Output format

[Camera-ready status] Ready / Needs fixes / Blocked
[Meta-review edits] <requested change -> edit made>
[Extra-page budget] <what the added space was spent on>
[De-anonymization + disclosure] <authors/acks/AI-use/links status>
[Anthology package] <PDF/metadata/license/artifact links>

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

See all skills by brycewang-stanford

Report a problem with this skill