ArXiv and The Future of Double-Blind Conference Reviewing

Dear readers! As comments published in response to our last blog illustrate, the issue of arXiv and blind reviewing is controversial. The only part on which everybody seems to agree is the  inadequacy of the current policy. We are rejecting papers for non-anonymised submissions where the authors genuinely forgot to remove their names, but let […]

Read More

Statistics on Submissions and Status Update

  Dear readers, We have received 1,419 papers (829 long and 590 short), from which we sent for review 1,318 papers (751 long and 567 short).  We describe how these submissions were processed, and give basic statistics about the submissions. While some of these details are mechanistic and inherently boring,  they may be helpful to you when […]

Read More

Invitation to contribute to a public release of anonymous peer reviews

A few months ago, I reached out to Regina and Min suggesting that anonymous peer reviews in ACL 2017 are made publicly available on an opt-in basis. After discussing the pros and cons, they agreed to carefully experiment with the idea. Similar to previous years, ACL 2017 will continue to adopt a double-blind review process. […]

Read More

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on submissions

Dear all: We received a few queries about the submission process that we would like to share with you (with our answers), since we believe many may share the same concerns.  As a friendly reminder, please do not change the LaTeX and Word templates, and do check the length of your submission. We would hate […]

Read More

Last Minute Writing Advice

Dear readers, The ACL deadline is a few days away. My group is not submitting to ACL this year, but judging from experience with other deadlines, this is a week when miraculous transformations happen — barely intelligible drafts fraught with mistakes and confusions become polished submissions, with very little resemblance to the initial version. I […]

Read More

Status of the Reviewer Pool

Dear all: We would like to update everyone with the current status of the ongoing reviewer recruitment. We have issued 1,532 invites. We have 1,228 invitees that accepted the charge and 169 that had to decline.  We thank all of you who responded and for being responsible and letting us know your availability – we […]

Read More

On the Process of Area Chair Selection

The goal of this post is to share with you the outcome of our experiment on area chair crowdsourcing experiment we conducted this year. There were several reasons for trying the new model. First, the recent report from the ACL exec about serious diversity issues in our community was an eye opener. I believe that […]

Read More