Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› acm-ieee-joint-conference-on-digital-libraries
acm-ieee-joint-conference-on-digital-libraries
GitHub用于评估论文是否适合ACM/IEEE JCDL会议，提供定位、重构及拒稿风险分析。适用于目标为JCDL的数字图书馆相关稿件，或需将期刊/预印本风格转换为CS会议叙事的场景，辅助作者进行投稿策略决策和证据差距诊断。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定JCDL为目标投稿 venue
数字图书馆领域稿件在格式化前需进行会议适配性评估
需要将期刊或arXiv风格论文重构为CS会议叙事
需要针对该会议进行证据缺口、匿名化、成果物或反驳策略的诊断
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill acm-ieee-joint-conference-on-digital-libraries -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "acm-ieee-joint-conference-on-digital-libraries",
"description": "Use when targeting ACM\/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for digital libraries."
}
ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL)
Conference positioning
ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL) is a top computer-science conference venue for digital libraries, archives, scholarly communication, metadata, preservation, and information access. It rewards a digital-library paper with collection, metadata, access, or preservation contribution. Treat this skill as a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal.
Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in ../../resources/conference-roster.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md.
When to trigger
- The author names JCDL / ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries as the target venue.
- A manuscript in digital libraries needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted.
- The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative.
- The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue.
Scope & topic fit
- Core fit: digital libraries, archives, scholarly communication, metadata, preservation, and information access.
- Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis.
- The paper should explain why the result matters to JCDL's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context.
- Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness.
- If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence.
Venue-specific calibration
- Reviewer lens: Treat JCDL as a digital libraries venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard.
- Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar.
- Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: digital libraries, archives, scholarly communication, metadata, preservation, and information access.
- Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: digital, libraries, archives, scholarly, communication, metadata, preservation, information, access, venue-specific, contribution, jcdl.
- Official anchor domain: www.jcdl.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit.
Close-neighbor routing guardrail
- Route to JCDL when the contribution is digital libraries, scholarly information systems, metadata, curation, preservation, search, or user behavior in digital collections.
- Compare SIGIR/ECIR for retrieval algorithms, CIKM for broader information/knowledge management, and CSCW/CHI when social or user-study contribution dominates.
What distinguishes this venue from its closest siblings
- What JCDL is. The ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries — digital libraries, archiving, metadata, scholarly infrastructure.
- vs SIGIR / ECIR. Those are core IR; JCDL is library/curation/infrastructure-centered (retrieval is one part).
- vs ISWC / K-CAP. ISWC is semantic web/knowledge graphs; route preservation/collection work to JCDL.
Method & evidence bar
- Use task-appropriate baselines, multiple datasets or languages when the claim is broad, and error analysis that explains model behavior.
- For LLM work, control for data leakage, prompt sensitivity, evaluation contamination, and human-evaluation reliability.
- For resources, document annotation, licensing, demographics, quality control, and intended use.
- For JCDL, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a digital-library paper with collection, metadata, access, or preservation contribution.
- Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim.
Structure & house style
- State the language phenomenon, task, or system behavior before the model name.
- Connect examples to measured errors; reviewers dislike anecdotal examples presented as evidence.
- Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles.
- The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim.
- Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution.
Official-cycle checklist
- Open the live official venue page: https://www.jcdl.org/
- Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements.
- Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle.
- Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at JCDL, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language.
- The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support.
- Related work includes the nearest current-cycle digital libraries papers and explains the technical delta.
- The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements.
- The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Evaluation that is only a prompt table or cherry-picked generation examples.
- Missing dataset documentation, licensing, or annotation reliability.
- Claims of general language understanding from narrow English-only benchmarks.
- Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy.
- A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving JCDL reviewers too little technical or empirical substance.
Re-routing decision
If the paper misses JCDL's bar, compare against annual-meeting-of-the-association-for-computational-linguistics / conference-on-empirical-methods-in-natural-language-processing / north-american-chapter-of-the-association-for-computational-linguistics / european-chapter-of-the-association-for-computational-linguistics. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL)
[Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other
[Main evidence gap] <single most important missing proof, experiment, study, artifact, or policy check>
[Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready
[Top rejection risk] <venue-specific risk>
[Re-route suggestion] <better-matched conference or journal if not a fit>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:39
