CSCW Submission

SkillDev tools

Use when readying a CSCW manuscript for upload, confirming the current pathway (rolling via Manuscript Central as of mid-2026), the single-column ACM template, the word-length scrutiny band, anonymization of author and community identifiers, ethics statements, and desk-risk triage.

Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.

Add ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.

Then ask your AI: use the CSCW Submission skill

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills in CSCW-Skills/skills/cscw-submission/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.

A CSCW submission enters a journal pipeline, and as of the 2026-07-08 check the pipeline itself is in transition: the May 14, 2025 PCS deadline was the last fixed cutoff, and papers for CSCW 2027 and beyond flow through the rolling pathway on Manuscript Central (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pacmhci) with no deadline at all. The first audit item is therefore not the paper — it is the pathway.

Pathway confirmation (do this first)

  • Open https://cscw.acm.org/rolling.html and confirm the live submission venue, account requirements, and any transitional instructions.
  • If the manuscript is a revision from the final fixed cycle, it stays in the system and decision vocabulary of that cycle — do not migrate it yourself.
  • Record what you verified and when; this venue's lore goes stale in months, and colleagues will hand you confident PCS-era instructions that no longer apply.

Manuscript checks

  • Template: single-column ACM submission template, per the 2026-cycle CFP. Confirm the rolling pathway names the same template before reformatting anything.
  • Length: no formal cap, but compute the word count (excluding references and appendices). Under ~5,000 or over ~12,000 words invites added scrutiny, and length disproportionate to contribution is itself a desk-rejection ground — the venue's most distinctive gate. Prepare the one-sentence length defense.
  • Ethics visibility: IRB/ethics status, consent posture per data source, and sensitive-data handling stated in the methods section, not implied.
  • Internal completeness: the paper must stand without the supplement (cscw-supplementary packages the rest).

Anonymization: two layers, not one

CSCW review is anonymous, and this venue has a second layer most conferences lack.

Layer 1 — authors: names, affiliations, institution and city references, and identifying grant information removed; self-citations in third person; metadata scrubbed from PDF and supplement files; acknowledgements withheld until acceptance.

Layer 2 — the studied setting: when the paper studies a specific team, organization, or online community, details that identify the setting can also identify the authors (a lab's known field site, a company only insiders could study, a community the authors visibly moderate). Audit for:

  • Named partner organizations or communities whose association with the author team is public.
  • Screenshots, quoted posts, or platform slugs that reverse-search to a community linked to the authors' prior publications.
  • Deployment details ("our university's makerspace") that geolocate the team.

Where masking the setting would gut the contribution, mask asymmetrically: keep analytic detail, coarsen ownership detail.

Desk-risk triage

RiskMechanismStanding
Length incommensurate with contributionEditor/chairs screeningExplicit desk-reject ground in the 2026-cycle CFP
Author identity visibleAnonymity policyRemoval or rejection
Setting-based deanonymizationSame policy, subtler leakReviewer-reported; damages trust for R&R
Wrong-pathway uploadPlatform transition confusionDelay measured in weeks — expensive with no deadline pressure to excuse it
Missing ethics accountReviewer expectation, journal normsRarely desk-level, reliably decision-level
Concurrent submission elsewhereStandard ACM/journal policyVerify current wording on the live CFP before certifying

Final pre-upload sequence

1. Pathway verified on cscw.acm.org (date recorded): platform = ______
2. Word count: ______ (defense sentence written if outside 5,000-12,000)
3. Layer-1 anonymity sweep: text, references, PDF metadata, supplement — pass
4. Layer-2 setting sweep: partner names, screenshots, reverse-searchable
   quotes — pass
5. Ethics statement present and specific — pass
6. Supplement inventory matches in-text references (cscw-supplementary) — pass
7. Metadata fields on the platform (title, abstract, authors held privately by
   the system, conflicts) match the PDF exactly
8. Confirmation email/receipt archived with a timestamp

Everything above dated 2026-07-08 describes a venue mid-migration. Before any real upload, re-verify the pathway, template, and policy wording on the live pages — this skill's job is to tell you what to verify, not to spare you the verifying.

Signals

GitHub stars
1k
Forks
155
Last commit
Sep 2026
Advanced
Item type
skill
Key
cscw-submission
Source
github.com/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills