Menu

Individual skill

icalp-review-process

0upvotes

Use when reasoning about how an ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-blind review, the separate Track A and Track B program committees, the asymmetric author interaction (Track B rebuttal vs Track A correctness-only contact), correctness-driven acceptance, the single accept/reject decision, and how ICALP's process differs from STOC/FOCS/SODA.

ICALP-Skills/skills/icalp-review-process/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Network or broad shell
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
1,405
Repository last updated
Sep 27, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# ICALP Review Process

Model the pipeline before interpreting any single review. ICALP's process is **conference-style and
correctness-centered**: a paper is accepted or rejected in one round (no journal-style major
revision), and the reviewers' overriding job is to judge whether the **theorems are significant and
the proofs are correct**. The most consequential thing to internalize is that the two tracks run
**different processes** — Track B gives you a rebuttal, Track A generally does not.

## Process model

- Submission and review run on **HotCRP**, on **separate servers per track**, under **lightweight
  double-blind**: identities are hidden for an unbiased first read, self-references are third person,
  but the regime is deliberately not adversarial about de-anonymization.
- Each paper is refereed by the track's **program committee** (often with sub-reviewers who are
Back to top