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

Last minute reviewing advice

Dear reviewers (and readers), The reviewing deadline for ACL submissions is a few days away.  In line with our previous post on Last minute writing advice that featured senior NLP/CL personalities, we’ve solicited more advice on the path to rewarding and meaningful reviewing from another cadre of excellent reviewers*, on how to write useful reviews […]

Read More

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 preparing […]

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