Author Response: Does it help?

Does the author response make any difference? Well, we won’t be able to give a definitive answer to this, but in our empirical drive to run an evidence-based programme committee chairing, we have downloaded the review data at different time points from our conference management software, to seek data that could answer this question as […]

Read More

Conversing or Presenting: Poster or Oral?

Dear Area Chairs, Readers: In addition to recommending preliminary accept/reject decisions, we had asked you to recommend submissions for either an oral or a poster format.  While ACL recognises both formats as equally prestigious, but the question of what type of work is best suited for oral or poster presentation is important to discuss.  Rather […]

Read More

Dealing with Conflicts of Interest (COIs)

Dear readers, In this post, we will share with you a letter  by Aurélien Max about conflict of interests (COIs).  While Min and I haven’t submitted to ACL to avoid COIs,  many area chairs did submit to the conference. In fact, for many Area Chairs (ACs) the ability to submit was their precondition for accepting the […]

Read More

Checks, double checks and triple checks

Dear readers, As we come toward the period for author responses, we thought we’d update everyone about the status of the review process. This year, we adopted a short initial review cycle of two weeks to ensure that the reviews would be completed with enough time for quality assurance checks before authors see the reviews. The longer […]

Read More

Avoidable Trouble: undeclared double submissions

Dear readers, This post is dedicated to undeclared double submissions. It is a common practice for PC chairs in related areas (e.g., NLP, ML and AI)  to exchange submission abstracts to identify overlapping papers. I thought that this fact is generally known to everyone who submits to ACL, but apparently it is not. A week […]

Read More

ArXiv and double-blind reviewing revisited

Joakim Nivre Uppsala University President of the ACL It is with great interest that I have followed the discussion in connection with ACL Vice-President Marti Hearst’s post last week on the conflict between pre-acceptance arXiv publishing and double-blind reviewing. Just to recap, most people agree that the former has a number of advantages such as […]

Read More

Matching Paper with Reviewers: Report from Area Chairs

Dear readers, My personal nightmare is rejecting interesting innovative papers in favor of safe incremental pieces on the topic de jour. Given the size of our submission pool (1400+), Min and I will be unable to read the vast majority of the submissions. This means that we have to rely on (very many) others to […]

Read More