https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=HinrichSchuetze 2026-05-31T23:56:14Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.43.6 https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Conference_Consistency_policy&diff=74167 2021-04-04T05:52:09Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: Created page with &quot;ACL policies should be applied consistently across the five major *ACL conferences (ACL, NAACL, EACL, AACL and EMNLP) and from year to year for each individual conference. Gen...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>ACL policies should be applied consistently across the five<br /> major *ACL conferences (ACL, NAACL, EACL, AACL and EMNLP)<br /> and from year to year for each individual conference.<br /> General and program chairs of the conferences will meet with<br /> the ACL conference officer in the early stages of planning a<br /> conference. In the meeting, ACL conference officer and<br /> conference chairs will review ACL policies and how to apply<br /> them to the specifics of the planned conference. In<br /> general, the ACL supports innovation and differences between<br /> the conferences that reflect the special character of the<br /> organizing regional chapter or special interest group. In<br /> coordination with the ACL Exec, the conference officer will<br /> advise conference organizers on how to strike a balance<br /> between consistency on the one hand and embracing innovation<br /> and the unique character of each individual conference on<br /> the other.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Policies&diff=74166 2021-04-04T05:49:58Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>== Policies ==<br /> <br /> *[[ACL Privacy Policy]]<br /> <br /> *[[Anti-Harassment Policy]]<br /> <br /> *[[ACL Whistleblower Protection Policy]]<br /> <br /> *[[ACL Conflict-of-interest policy]]<br /> <br /> *[[ACL Conference Conflict-of-interest policy]]<br /> <br /> *[[ACL Conference Consistency policy]]<br /> <br /> *[[ACL Document Retention and Destruction Policy]]<br /> <br /> *[[ACL Policy on Political Statements and Actions]]<br /> <br /> *[[ACL Policies for Submission, Review and Citation]]<br /> <br /> *[[Policy on Obituary]]<br /> <br /> == Proposals == <br /> <br /> *[[Short-Term Reform Proposals for ACL Reviewing]]<br /> <br /> *[[ACL Rolling Review Proposal]]<br /> <br /> *[[Review Data Collection at *ACL]]<br /> <br /> == Awards ==<br /> <br /> *[[Test-of-Time Papers Award]]<br /> <br /> *[[Lifetime Achievement Award]]<br /> <br /> *[[Distinguished Service Award]]<br /> <br /> == Procedures ==<br /> <br /> *[[Test-of-Time Papers Process]]<br /> <br /> *[[Procedure for composing the new Nominating Committee]]<br /> <br /> *[[Fellows Program]]<br /> <br /> *[[Process for Ad Hoc ACL Leadership Roles]]<br /> <br /> == Guidelines ==<br /> <br /> *[[ACL Author Guidelines]]<br /> <br /> *[[ACL Reviewer Guidelines]]</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2021Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=74143 2021-03-21T10:39:35Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: Replaced content with &quot;:File:Acl 2021 progress report.pdf&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>[[:File:Acl 2021 progress report.pdf]]</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=File:Acl_2021_progress_report.pdf&diff=74142 2021-03-21T10:37:04Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: Progress report for ACL 2021 for the Q! 2021 ACL Exec meeting</p> <hr /> <div>Progress report for ACL 2021 for the Q! 2021 ACL Exec meeting</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2021Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=74096 2021-03-10T10:51:17Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: Created page with &quot;The Joint Conference of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (AC...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>The Joint Conference of the 59th Annual Meeting of the<br /> Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th<br /> International Joint Conference on Natural Language<br /> Processing (ACL-IJCNLP 2021) will be held in Bangkok,<br /> Thailand, August 1-6, 2021. See the conference homepage:<br /> https://2021.aclweb.org/.<br /> <br /> We have built 18 committees and there are 60 chairs in<br /> total. It is really a great set of chairs! Up to now all<br /> things on organization of ACL-IJCNLP’2021 have been well<br /> processed and everything is going smoothly. The<br /> following summarizes the progress in 2021:<br /> <br /> We received over 3500 submissions, a new record.<br /> <br /> Following advice from last year and referring to other<br /> conferences, including COLING’2020 and NAACL’2021, we have<br /> built an Ethics Advisory Committee (EAC). The three co-chairs are<br /> from Europe, US and Singapore. They are Malvina<br /> Nissim from University of Groningen, Xanda Schofield from<br /> Harvey Mudd College and Min-Yen Kan from National University<br /> of Singapore.<br /> <br /> Considering it is not very easy that PC Chairs communicate<br /> with authors by using Softconf system (START), we have built<br /> a message board in the conference home page. All news,<br /> especially those important and emergent news and notices are<br /> announced in the message board. In addition, we have built<br /> the Social Media Committee. The five Social Media Committee<br /> chairs are from North America, Europe and<br /> Asia. They help the conference, especially the PC Chairs,<br /> distribute news as widely as possible in cooperation with<br /> the publicity chair by using Twitter, Facebook, WeChat, Weibo<br /> and many other social media platforms.<br /> <br /> In good cooperation with NAACL’2021 and EACL’2021, our<br /> Workshop Chairs, Kentaro Inui and Michael Strube, have<br /> selected 23 workshops, which have been announced on the<br /> conference home page.<br /> <br /> Also in good cooperation with NAACL’2021 and EACL’2021, our<br /> Tutorial Chairs, Min Zhang and David Chiang have selected 6<br /> tutorials, which are shown on the conference home page.<br /> <br /> The Demo Chairs, Heng Ji, Jong C. Park and Rui Xia, have<br /> announced the demo CFP on the conference home page (and via<br /> the ACL mailing list). The submission deadline is March 25,<br /> 2021. According to the request from Heng and Jong, I invited<br /> Prof. Rui Xia to join the committee.<br /> <br /> With the great help of Priscilla Rasmussen and Chris<br /> Callison-Burch, the new version of the Sponsorship booklet has<br /> been prepared and announced on the conference<br /> homepage. In addition, to enhance the local sponsorship<br /> committee, two researchers, Jing Li and Zhongyu Wei, have<br /> been invited to join the committee.<br /> <br /> The SRW chairs did good work under the supervision of four<br /> Faculty Advisors. The paper submission deadline for SRW is<br /> April 2, 2021.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Privacy_Policy&diff=74009 2020-11-29T09:08:41Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>The Association for Computational Linguistics, Inc. (“Association,”, “ACL”, “we,” “us,” and “our”) respects individual privacy and values the confidence of our members, conference attendees, program participants, and our community. This Privacy Policy sets out the privacy principles that we follow with respect to the collection, use, and disclosure of information that you may provide through the Association’s websites (including aclweb.org, emnlp.org, cljournal.org, transacl.org, ACL special interest group (SIG) sites, and ACL annual conference websites), conference registration platform, as well as through other channels, and at our events you may attend.<br /> <br /> Please read this entire Privacy Policy before submitting information to ACL through any submission channels. <br /> <br /> == Contact Details ==<br /> <br /> If you have any questions regarding our Privacy Policy and our practices regarding information you provide to us. Please contact:<br /> <br /> Association for Computational Linguistics, Inc. <br /> <br /> Re: Privacy Inquiry <br /> <br /> Email: acl (at) aclweb.org<br /> <br /> == Association’s Mission Purpose; Legitimate Interests ==<br /> <br /> The Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) is the international scientific and professional society for people working on computational problems involving human language. ACL’s mission is to promote research and development activities and facilitate collaboration and information exchange among its members and technical societies in the field of computational linguistics. Any information ACL collects serves to further our mission, including but not limited to the following:<br /> <br /> *Provide relevant information to our potential members, active members, our professional community, sponsors, and the public<br /> *Respond to inquiries relating to the ACL<br /> *Promote ACL events, programs, and activities<br /> *Develop programs and services that are relevant and valuable to our members and community<br /> *Perform our contractual obligations with members in good standing, registered attendees at our events/conferences, and subscribers of our journals and publications <br /> <br /> == Information We Collect About You; Purposes ==<br /> <br /> You can access ACL websites without submitting any information to us. However, if you wish to participate in our events and programs, we may ask that you provide us personal data for the following purposes: <br /> <br /> A.Register to attend ACL conferences and events<br /> <br /> B.Join ACL as a member or renew membership<br /> <br /> C.Submit papers for publication in the ACL Journals, conferences and workshops<br /> <br /> D.Make audio and video recordings for presentation at ACL conferences and for publication<br /> <br /> E.Subscribe to ACL’s publications and newsletters<br /> <br /> F.Create a website account at aclweb.org or a profile on a conference management platform <br /> <br /> G.Management of ACL’s Conflicts-of-Interest (COIs) mechanism<br /> <br /> H.Contact ACL<br /> <br /> As ACL may have contractual obligations in connection with carrying out some of the activities described above, it will be necessary for ACL to collect your personal data in order to perform such contractual obligations.<br /> <br /> ''Personal Data That You Voluntarily Provide To Us''. ACL only collects personal data you voluntarily submit to us. The types of personal data we collect vary based on the programs, services, and products you wish to engage in, but generally include your name, email address, postal address, affiliation (business/institutional), gender (optional), and credit card information (when payment is due).<br /> <br /> '''Website Portal:''' when you create a profile on our portal, aclweb.org, we will collect the information that you elect to upload to your profile, such as biography, your education and contact information. <br /> <br /> '''Conference Management Platform Profile:''' when authors and reviewers of ACL conferences/journals create their profiles on conference management platforms we use (e.g., START hosted by Softconf), we will collect the information users elect to upload to their profile, such as biography, education and contact information. In order for ACL to conduct the conferences/journals review process, authors/reviewers also submit the following information: <br /> *Their reviews<br /> *Posts on discussion forums during the review process<br /> *Responses to reviews<br /> <br /> '''ACL Conference Mobile App:''' when you attend ACL conferences, you may have the option to download the conference mobile app built on the applicable event management platforms offered by companies such as conference4me.eu, guidebook.com, and whova.com. When users download the ACL conference mobile app, users are asked to provide their email address, usernames, and passwords, and could add their affiliations and other information for networking purposes. ACL may collect the information users provide in connection with using the ACL conference mobile app.<br /> <br /> '''Management of ACL Conflicts of Interest (COIs) Mechanism:''' to ensure fairness of ACL’s journal peer review process, as well as decisions concerning conference program planning and nominations, ACL community members are requested to disclose/declare potential conflicts of interest to ACL’s Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) according to the [[ACL Conflict-of-interest policy]]. <br /> <br /> When you disclose/declare potential COIs to the PCC, you are asked to provide names, email addresses, affiliations, and conference management platform IDs (e.g. START IDs) of yourself and the other member who has a potential COI. Validated COIs are recorded and shared with the appropriate ACL committee or working group (e.g., nomination committees and organizers of ACL conferences) to ensure that decisions are unaffected by COIs. Validated COIs do not expire and will be retained until the declaring member asks the PCC to remove the COI from their record. Information collected and processed in connection with ACL’s COI mechanism is kept confidential, and may be disclosed only on a need to know basis consistent with the intended purpose. Individuals involved in the COI Mechanism and other PCC matters may be subject to nondisclosure obligations.<br /> <br /> You should carefully consider whether you wish to submit personal data and tailor any content you submit appropriately. <br /> <br /> It is ACL’s general policy to keep our members’ personal data for a period of five (5) years following the last contact with us. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ACL may keep your personal data for a longer period as required by law or as needed in legal proceedings or to fulfill ACL’s legitimate interest.<br /> <br /> == No Collection of Special Data ==<br /> <br /> We do not generally seek to collect any special categories of personal data such as personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious beliefs, genetic data, etc. Nor do we collect any information about criminal convictions and offences. In the limited cases where we do seek to collect such data, such as for purposes of complying with employment related anti-discrimination laws (if applicable) and organizing events, we will obtain explicit consent from you. <br /> <br /> == How We Use Information ==<br /> <br /> We will use the information you provide to us in order to carry out ACL’s mission purpose and relevant programs and activities, to fulfill our contractual obligations, and for internal use by ACL executives, board/committee members, consultants, and appropriate volunteer staff, such as performing marketing studies, research projects, and program development in support of ACL’s mission purposes. Depending on the type of personal data collected and purpose of use, you may elect to opt out of or adjust the categories of personal data ACL may use for internal research purposes.<br /> <br /> In the event ACL reports on its program/research analysis publicly, all statistics and data in such reports will be presented in anonymous aggregated form.<br /> <br /> == How We Share and Disclose Information ==<br /> <br /> We do not share, sell, or rent information to any third party processors for their promotional use or for marketing purposes except in the circumstances described below:<br /> <br /> * ACL Agents/Selected Vendors: your personal data may be used within ACL or by a company acting as an agent of ACL for operational support purposes, including but not limited to event registration and conference/journal reviews (e.g., Softconf), content management and analysis (e.g., GitHub, Netlify, AWS, and Office365), system maintenance (e.g., Bluehost), email distribution, printing, and mailing. ACL agents and selected vendors are obligated to process personal data according to the contracted purpose and implement appropriate safeguards in connection with such data processing. <br /> * Meeting Attendee list: The list of ACL conference and meeting registrants, including the attendees’ contact information provided as part of registration, is provided to authorized exhibitors and sponsors for that one conference/meeting. Attendees may opt-out of being included on the foregoing list at the time of registration. <br /> * ACL Business Partners and Affiliates: ACL may share your information with carefully selected business partners and affiliates whose products and services may be of interest to our members and community. All ACL business partners and affiliates are obligated to implement opt-out mechanisms and honor any opt-out requests by recipients in compliance with applicable laws. <br /> <br /> When you terminate your membership or cancel the website account or conference management platform access, ACL may continue to share information about you according to our legal and regulatory requirements.<br /> <br /> Notwithstanding the foregoing, ACL may disclose your personal information as required by law or as needed in legal proceedings when ACL believes in good faith that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights, protect your safety or the safety of others, investigate fraud, or respond to a government request.<br /> <br /> In addition, in the event of a merger, acquisition, or any form of sale or transfer of some or all of our assets to a third party, we may also disclose your personal information to the third parties concerned or their professional advisors. In the event of such a transaction, the personal information held by ACL will be among the assets subject to the transaction. <br /> <br /> == Credit Card Information==<br /> <br /> ACL does not disclose credit card information provided by its members and customers. When members and customers choose to pay using their credit cards, ACL submits the information needed through a secure payment gate site (e.g., PlugNPay) to conduct the transactions. <br /> <br /> == Cookies ==<br /> <br /> Cookies are files that contain information created by a web server that can be stored on a user’s hard disk for future use. The ACL website uses functional cookies to keep the content of our website up-to-date and running. This means that these cookies are essential to the proper functioning of the ACL website. It is not possible to refuse these cookies if you want to visit the ACL website. The aclweb.org website does not use cookies for analytical purposes. However, ACL conference websites (e.g. acl2019.org, acl2020.org) may use Google Analytics to determine content that users deemed helpful. <br /> <br /> We use the foregoing information in form of summary or aggregated statistics to help us make our website more useful to our visitors, such as assessing what information is of most and least interest.<br /> <br /> == Communications From ACL/How to Update Preferences ==<br /> <br /> Except for transactional emails necessary to perform ACL’s contractual obligations, we will not send you promotional information without your consent, and you can withdraw consent at any time or update your preferences by following the instructions included in each communication, by logging in your website account and utilizing the communication preference settings at aclweb.org, or by contacting us at acl (at) aclweb.org <br /> <br /> == How to Access, Correct, and Update Information ==<br /> <br /> You may access, correct, or update your personal information by logging in your website account or conference management platform account, or by contacting us at acl (at) aclweb.org. We may ask you to provide sufficient evidence of your identity for your own protection so we can ensure that information is being released to the correct person. In some cases, our business requirements and legal obligations may prevent us from being able to delete your information. <br /> <br /> == Children’s Information ==<br /> <br /> The website is not intended for children under 13 years of age. ACL does not knowingly collect personal information from children under 13 years of age. If ACL discovers that a child under the age of 13 has provided us with personal data, we will delete the child’s personal data unless a parent or guardian provides verifiable consent to ACL.<br /> <br /> == Security Measures ==<br /> <br /> Our website has security measures in place to protect the loss, misuse, and alteration of the information under ACL’s control. When you enter sensitive information (such as a credit card number) as part of the purchase process, we encrypt the transmission of that information using secure socket layer technology (SSL).<br /> <br /> When you submit information to ACL through our website, you should be aware that your information is transmitted across the Internet and that no method of transmission over the Internet is 100% secure. Although we take reasonable security measures to protect your information when we receive it, you also need to ensure you take appropriate steps to protect your information.<br /> <br /> == International Website Access and Cross-Border Data Transfers ==<br /> <br /> ACL is incorporated in the United States and required to maintain good corporate standing and comply with applicable tax reporting obligations. If you are visiting ACL websites from outside the United States, your information may be transferred to, stored, and processed in the United States. In addition, information that ACL collects may be stored and processed in and transferred between any of the countries in which ACL members reside to enable the use of the information in accordance with this Privacy Policy. <br /> <br /> == Privacy Issues and Links to Other Sites ==<br /> <br /> The website may contain links to other third party websites that are not affiliated with ACL, such as links to university courses that contain content in Natural Language Processing and Computational Linguistics. ACL has no control over and is not responsible for the privacy policies or content of such sites. <br /> <br /> == Social Media Widgets ==<br /> <br /> The ACL conference website includes social media features, such as the Twitter and GitHub buttons that run on the conference website. These features may collect your Internet Protocol address and which page you are visiting on our website, and may set a cookie to enable the feature to function properly. Social media features and widgets are either hosted by a third party or hosted directly on our site. Your interactions with these features are governed by the privacy policy of the company providing it.<br /> <br /> ACL participates in social media platforms, e.g., Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. ACL utilizes social media platforms to promote ACL program offerings, but does not collect personal data through use of those channels. <br /> <br /> == Amendments and Updates ==<br /> <br /> ACL will occasionally update this Privacy Policy. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will be posted here so that users will know what information we gather, how we might use that information, and whether we will disclose it to anyone. We encourage you to periodically review this page for the latest information on our privacy practices and this Privacy Policy.<br /> <br /> <br /> Effective Date: November 2020</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Privacy_Policy&diff=74008 2020-11-29T08:59:00Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>The Association for Computational Linguistics, Inc. (“Association,”, “ACL”, “we,” “us,” and “our”) respects individual privacy and values the confidence of our members, conference attendees, program participants, and our community. This Privacy Policy sets out the privacy principles that we follow with respect to the collection, use, and disclosure of information that you may provide through the Association’s websites (including aclweb.org, emnlp.org, cljournal.org, transacl.org, ACL special interest group (SIG) sites, and ACL annual conference websites), conference registration platform, as well as through other channels, and at our events you may attend.<br /> <br /> Please read this entire Privacy Policy before submitting information to ACL through any submission channels. <br /> <br /> == Contact Details ==<br /> <br /> If you have any questions regarding our Privacy Policy and our practices regarding information you provide to us. Please contact:<br /> <br /> Association for Computational Linguistics, Inc. <br /> <br /> Re: Privacy Inquiry <br /> <br /> Email: acl (at) aclweb.org<br /> <br /> == Association’s Mission Purpose; Legitimate Interests ==<br /> <br /> The Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) is the international scientific and professional society for people working on computational problems involving human language. ACL’s mission is to promote research and development activities and facilitate collaboration and information exchange among its members and technical societies in the field of computational linguistics. Any information ACL collects serves to further our mission, including but not limited to the following:<br /> <br /> *Provide relevant information to our potential members, active members, our professional community, sponsors, and the public<br /> *Respond to inquiries relating to the ACL<br /> *Promote ACL events, programs, and activities<br /> *Develop programs and services that are relevant and valuable to our members and community<br /> *Perform our contractual obligations with members in good standing, registered attendees at our events/conferences, and subscribers of our journals and publications <br /> <br /> == Information We Collect About You; Purposes ==<br /> <br /> You can access ACL websites without submitting any information to us. However, if you wish to participate in our events and programs, we may ask that you provide us personal data for the following purposes: <br /> <br /> A.Register to attend ACL conferences and events<br /> <br /> B.Join ACL as a member or renew membership<br /> <br /> C.Submit papers for publication in the ACL Journals, conferences and workshops<br /> <br /> D.Make audio and video recordings for presentation at ACL conferences and for publication<br /> <br /> E.Subscribe to ACL’s publications and newsletters<br /> <br /> F.Create a website account at aclweb.org or a profile on a conference management platform <br /> <br /> G.Management of ACL’s Conflicts-of-Interest (COIs) mechanism<br /> <br /> H.Contact ACL<br /> <br /> As ACL may have contractual obligations in connection with carrying out some of the activities described above, it will be necessary for ACL to collect your personal data in order to perform such contractual obligations.<br /> <br /> ''Personal Data That You Voluntarily Provide To Us''. ACL only collects personal data you voluntarily submit to us. The types of personal data we collect vary based on the programs, services, and products you wish to engage in, but generally include your name, email address, postal address, affiliation (business/institutional), gender (optional), and credit card information (when payment is due).<br /> <br /> '''Website Portal:''' when you create a profile on our portal, aclweb.org, we will collect the information that you elect to upload to your profile, such as biography, your education and contact information. <br /> <br /> '''Conference Management Platform Profile:''' when authors and reviewers of ACL conferences/journals create their profiles on conference management platforms we use (e.g., START hosted by Softconf), we will collect the information users elect to upload to their profile, such as biography, education and contact information. In order for ACL to conduct the conferences/journals review process, authors/reviewers also submit the following information: <br /> *Their reviews<br /> *Posts on discussion forums during the review process<br /> *Responses to reviews<br /> <br /> '''ACL Conference Mobile App:''' when you attend ACL conferences, you may have the option to download the conference mobile app built on the applicable event management platforms offered by companies such as conference4me.eu, guidebook.com, and whova.com. When users download the ACL conference mobile app, users are asked to provide their email address, usernames, and passwords, and could add their affiliations and other information for networking purposes. ACL may collect the information users provide in connection with using the ACL conference mobile app.<br /> <br /> '''Management of ACL Conflicts of Interest (COIs) Mechanism:''' to ensure fairness of ACL’s journal peer review process, as well as decisions concerning conference program planning and nominations, ACL community members are requested to disclose/declare potential conflicts of interest to ACL’s Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) according to the [[ACL Conflict-of-interest policy]]. <br /> <br /> When you disclose/declare potential COIs to the PCC, you are asked to provide names, email addresses, affiliations, and conference management platform IDs (e.g. START IDs) of yourself and the other member who has a potential COI. Validated COIs are recorded and shared with the appropriate ACL committee or working group (e.g., nomination committees and organizers of ACL conferences) to ensure that decisions are unaffected by COIs. Validated COIs do not expire and will be retained until the declaring member asks the PCC to remove the COI from their record. Information collected and processed in connection with ACL’s COI mechanism is kept confidential, and may be disclosed only on a need to know basis consistent with the intended purpose. Individuals involved in the COI Mechanism and other PCC matters may be subject to nondisclosure obligations.<br /> <br /> You should carefully consider whether you wish to submit personal data and tailor any content you submit appropriately. <br /> <br /> It is ACL’s general policy to keep our members’ personal data for a period of five (5) years following the last contact with us. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ACL may keep your personal data for a longer period as required by law or as needed in legal proceedings or to fulfill ACL’s legitimate interest.<br /> <br /> == No Collection of Special Data ==<br /> <br /> We do not generally seek to collect any special categories of personal data such as personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious beliefs, genetic data, etc. Nor do we collect any information about criminal convictions and offences. In the limited cases where we do seek to collect such data, such as for purposes of complying with employment related anti-discrimination laws (if applicable) and organizing events, we will obtain explicit consent from you. <br /> <br /> == How We Use Information ==<br /> <br /> We will use the information you provide to us in order to carry out ACL’s mission purpose and relevant programs and activities, to fulfill our contractual obligations, and for internal use by ACL executives, board/committee members, consultants, and appropriate volunteer staff, such as performing marketing studies, research projects, and program development in support of ACL’s mission purposes. Depending on the type of personal data collected and purpose of use, you may elect to opt-out or adjust the categories of personal data ACL may use for internal research purposes.<br /> <br /> In the event ACL reports on its program/research analysis publicly, all statistics and data in such reports will be presented in anonymous aggregated form.<br /> <br /> == How We Share and Disclose Information ==<br /> <br /> We do not share, sell, or rent information to any third party processors for their promotional use or for marketing purposes except in the circumstances described below:<br /> <br /> * ACL Agents/Selected Vendors: your personal data may be used within ACL or by a company acting as an agent of ACL for operational support purposes, including but not limited to event registration and conference/journal reviews (e.g., Softconf), content management and analysis (e.g., GitHub, Netlify, AWS, and Office365), system maintenance (e.g., Bluehost), email distribution, printing, and mailing. ACL agents and selected vendors are obligated to process personal data according to the contracted purpose and implement appropriate safeguards in connection with such data processing. <br /> * Meeting Attendee list: The list of ACL conference and meeting registrants, including the attendees’ contact information provided as part of registration, is provided to authorized exhibitors and sponsors for that one conference/meeting. Attendees may opt-out of being included on the foregoing list at the time of registration. <br /> * ACL Business Partners and Affiliates: ACL may share your information with carefully selected business partners and affiliates whose products and services may be of interest to our members and community. All ACL business partners and affiliates are obligated to implement opt-out mechanisms and honor any opt-out requests by recipients in compliance with applicable laws. <br /> <br /> When you terminate your membership or cancel the website account or conference management platform access, ACL may continue to share information about you according to our legal and regulatory requirements.<br /> <br /> Notwithstanding the foregoing, ACL may disclose your personal information as required by law or as needed in legal proceedings when ACL believes in good faith that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights, protect your safety or the safety of others, investigate fraud, or respond to a government request.<br /> <br /> In addition, in the event of a merger, acquisition, or any form of sale or transfer of some or all of our assets to a third party, we may also disclose your personal information to the third parties concerned or their professional advisors. In the event of such a transaction, the personal information held by ACL will be among the assets subject to the transaction. <br /> <br /> == Credit Card Information==<br /> <br /> ACL does not disclose credit card information provided by its members and customers. When members and customers choose to pay using their credit cards, ACL submits the information needed through a secure payment gate site (e.g., PlugNPay) to conduct the transactions. <br /> <br /> == Cookies ==<br /> <br /> Cookies are files that contain information created by a web server that can be stored on a user’s hard disk for future use. The ACL website uses functional cookies to keep the content of our website up-to-date and running. This means that these cookies are essential to the proper functioning of the ACL website. It is not possible to refuse these cookies if you want to visit the ACL website. The aclweb.org website does not use cookies for analytical purposes. However, ACL conference websites (e.g. acl2019.org, acl2020.org) may use Google Analytics to determine content that users deemed helpful. <br /> <br /> We use the foregoing information in form of summary or aggregated statistics to help us make our website more useful to our visitors, such as assessing what information is of most and least interest.<br /> <br /> == Communications From ACL/How to Update Preferences ==<br /> <br /> Except for transactional emails necessary to perform ACL’s contractual obligations, we will not send you promotional information without your consent, and you can withdraw consent at any time or update your preference by following the instructions included in each communication, by logging in your website account and utilizing the communication preference setting at aclweb.org, or by contacting us at ac (at) aclweb.org <br /> <br /> == How to Access, Correct, and Update Information ==<br /> <br /> You may access, correct, or update your personal information by logging in your website account or conference management platform account, or by contacting us at acl (at) aclweb.org. We may ask you to provide sufficient evidence of your identity for your own protection so we can ensure that information is being released to the correct person. In some cases, our business requirements and legal obligations may prevent us from being able to delete your information. <br /> <br /> == Children’s Information ==<br /> <br /> The website is not intended for children under 13 years of age. ACL does not knowingly collect personal information from children under 13 years of age. If ACL discovers that a child under the age of 13 has provided us with personal data, we will delete the child’s personal data unless a parent or guardian provides verifiable consent to ACL.<br /> <br /> == Security Measures ==<br /> <br /> Our website has security measures in place to protect the loss, misuse, and alteration of the information under ACL’s control. When you enter sensitive information (such as a credit card number) as part of the purchase process, we encrypt the transmission of that information using secure socket layer technology (SSL).<br /> <br /> When you submit information to ACL through our website, you should be aware that your information is transmitted across the Internet and that no method of transmission over the Internet is 100% secure. Although we take reasonable security measures to protect your information when we receive it, you also need to ensure you take appropriate steps to protect your information.<br /> <br /> == International Website Access and Cross-Border Data Transfers ==<br /> <br /> ACL is incorporated in the United States and required to maintain good corporate standing and comply with applicable tax reporting obligations. If you are visiting ACL websites from outside the United States, your information may be transferred to, stored, and processed in the United States. In addition, information that ACL collects may be stored and processed in and transferred between any of the countries in which ACL members reside to enable the use of the information in accordance with this Privacy Policy. <br /> <br /> == Privacy Issues and Links to Other Sites ==<br /> <br /> The website may contain links to other third party websites that are not affiliated with ACL, such as links to university courses that contain content in Natural Language Processing and Computational Linguistics. ACL has no control over and is not responsible for the privacy policies or content of such sites. <br /> <br /> == Social Media Widgets ==<br /> <br /> The ACL conference website includes social media features, such as the Twitter and GitHub buttons that run on the conference website. These features may collect your Internet Protocol address and which page you are visiting on our website, and may set a cookie to enable the feature to function properly. Social media features and widgets are either hosted by a third party or hosted directly on our site. Your interactions with these features are governed by the privacy policy of the company providing it.<br /> <br /> ACL participates in social media platforms, e.g., Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. ACL utilizes social media platforms to promote ACL program offerings, but does not collect personal data through use of those channels. <br /> <br /> == Amendments and Updates ==<br /> <br /> ACL will occasionally update this Privacy Policy. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will be posted here so that users will know what information we gather, how we might use that information, and whether we will disclose it to anyone. We encourage you to periodically review this page for the latest information on our privacy practices and this Privacy Policy.<br /> <br /> <br /> Effective Date: November 2020</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Policy_on_joint_conferences&diff=74007 2020-11-29T08:38:46Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>==Policy for ACL conferences held jointly with local Chapters==<br /> <br /> '''[[Conference_Handbook|Conference Handbook]] - Joint Conferences Policy''' <br /> <br /> This document outlines the procedures and sets out the respective roles of the ACL and Chapter in the planning and organisation of ACL conferences that are joint with a local chapter.<br /> <br /> * The name of the conference will be &quot;The nn Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics&quot;.<br /> * The standard form for the acronym of the conference will be ACL-year(e.g., ACL-2019)<br /> * The publicity of the conference (e.g., Call for Papers, Call for Participation, programme, web-site) will recognise the participation of both the ACL and the Chapter.<br /> * The planning and organisation of the conference will be overseen by a special ad-hoc Coordination Group (also known as the Coordination Committee) comprising:<br /> ** ACL VP-Elect, Secretary, and Treasurer of the ACL, or their representatives. <br /> ** Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer of the Chapter, or their representatives<br /> ** business officer of the ACL<br /> ** one additional member from each of the ACL executive committee and the Chapter board. <br /> * This group will be formed at least 24 months before the due date of the conference, but preferably before this.<br /> * The group will be chaired by the ACL VP-Elect.<br /> * The first task of the group will normally be to send out the Call for Bids and to oversee the site-selection process. It is recognised that in some cases (e.g., in order to co-locate with other conferences or meetings) the Call for Bids may be broadcast prior to the formation of the group.<br /> * The role of the ACL executive members on the group will be to ensure that ACL standards are maintained and to assist the Local Arrangements Chair in securing international sponsorship.<br /> * The role of the Chapter board members will be to ensure that the conference has a local flavour and to assist the Local Arrangements Chair in securing local sponsorship. This also includes tasks like keeping an eye out for the geographical distribution of the conference committee members, proposing a local invited speaker etc.<br /> * In coordinating the conference, this group is the liaison point between the General Chair of the conference, and the ACL exec and Chapter board.<br /> * The ACL exec and Chapter board will be consulted on decisions pertaining to the selection of the conference site, the general chair, the other conference chairs (e.g., PC, Workshops, Tutorial).<br /> * Publicly, this will be a shadow group --- i.e., it gets no billing on the Conference Committee.<br /> * The financing for the conferences (i.e., all surpluses/losses from the conference) will be split evenly between the International ACL and the Chapter.<br /> * When there are differences in policies or procedures between the local chapter and the parent organization, ACL policies and procedures take precedence.<br /> <br /> Revised and approved by Executive Board, July 2001, modified July 2005 - Nov 2020<br /> <br /> [[Category:Conference Handbook]]</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Short-Term_Reform_Proposals_for_ACL_Reviewing&diff=73662 2020-06-22T07:47:03Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Note: We are soliciting feedback from the ACL community on the short- and long-term reviewing proposals. If you would like to provide feedback, please do so here:'''<br /> <br /> https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=9028kaqAQ0OMdrEjlJf7WQiNRJRoOx9OlzQS6C5hck5URVc2MDZPRFBVNDRRRjBaMjBQVk41RVpMOC4u<br /> <br /> ''These short-term proposals were adopted by the ACL Exec on June 8 as an initial step to improve''<br /> ''reviewing. As we work towards a more comprehensive reform, we welcome feedback on all the aspects''<br /> ''of our current reviewing system (including the short-term proposals). Feedback from our community will be''<br /> ''valuable in informing further development of the system.''<br /> <br /> The rapid growth of submissions and the increasing popularity of preprints have caused '''four problems''' to the current ACL reviewing system:<br /> <br /> '''Review is not blind to all papers.''' Any time a paper is posted on arXiv, it is not blind. The best reviewer for a paper would be familiar with all public work that is relevant to the paper being reviewed, which includes papers that were published on arXiv. When some papers are blind and others are not, our review process is biased and unfair.<br /> <br /> '''Turnaround time is too long.''' A large factor in the incentive to go to arXiv is that turnaround time from when a paper is finished to when it can be made public can be many months, especially when you get several random rejects. Reducing this turnaround time is key to removing the incentive to go to arXiv before review. If turnaround time is fast enough, we can feel better about banning arXiv before review without worrying that it will drive people away to other venues.<br /> <br /> '''Review quality is too low.''' Good, experienced reviewers do not have a strong external incentive to do a good job; we are relying on their internal incentives only. New reviewers do not have good mechanisms for getting trained.<br /> <br /> '''Not enough space for all good papers.''' Program chairs have to reject good papers in order to meet acceptance rates, which are required by some in our community for various reasons. This is unfortunate by itself, and when combined with low review quality and randomness due to just three (perhaps poorly assigned) reviewers, it leads to a large number of resubmissions, dramatically increasing review load.<br /> <br /> To address these problems, the ACL Committee on Reviewing has been working on two proposals for reforming the reviewing system of ACL-related conferences: short-term and long-term. This document presents the short term proposals. It consists of four complementary actions that can be realistically implemented to improve the ACL review process in the near future (while the committee continues to investigate changes that require a longer lead time). These actions jointly address the four problems identified below. They are likely to be accepted by the majority of NLP researchers and they involve keeping existing ACL policies in place, including those regarding [[ACL Policies for Submission, Review and Citation | submission, review and citation]].<br /> <br /> == 1 Establishing ACL Archives (a.k.a. Findings) ==<br /> <br /> The pace of NLP research has increased in recent years, both in terms of the volume of papers submitted to top conferences and in perceived reduction in the “half-life” of papers. At the same time, acceptance rates for leading conferences (e.g., ACL, NAACL, EMNLP) have remained at around 20–25% which means that the absolute volume of rejected papers has actually increased. Therefore, a significant number of papers that fall below the acceptance threshold for an individual conference are still likely to be of a publishable standard. This proposal attempts to address this issue, and find a middle ground in maintaining the selectivity of major conferences (a necessary evil for academic prestige) and providing authors of such “publishable” papers the option to have their peer-reviewed papers published. The papers would be published ''outside'' of the main conference proceedings in a new journal-like outlet that we call '''ACL Archives''' here: (It was given the name ''Findings of EMNLP'' at EMNLP 2020.)<br /> <br /> * The review process would be slightly modified so that it’s possible to separate between the paper ranking process that is used to select papers for the conference and the classification of whether a paper has sufficient substance/quality/novelty to warrant publication in the first place. This could be done as follows: during the review process, in addition to existing criteria (e.g., novelty, rigour, and experimental soundness), reviewers, AC and ultimately PC Chairs would assess papers for ''publishability''. PC Chairs could implement this new criterion as an additional Agree/Disagree field in the review form, possibly responding to the following question (using a 4-point Likert scale): ''Is the paper of a suitable standard to be publishable in its current form, possibly with minor revisions based on reviewer feedback?'' <br /> <br /> * To authors of papers deemed publishable in principle, PC chairs would offer the possibility to have the papers published with the stamp of peer review, but through an alternative mechanism to the main conference proceedings. To avoid any ambiguity with papers published in the main conference proceedings, a new journal-like publication outlet should be created (e.g. ACL Archives or Findings). This would be indexed in the ACL Anthology and there would be a single issue per conference only. When the decision is made to publish in this form, the research would be considered formally published, precluding the possibility of also submitting the paper to the next conference for publication. Authors could choose to opt in or out. Papers for which this is likely to be an attractive option include those for which publication is particularly time-critical (e.g. the novelty of the work would be diminished if submitted to the next conference).<br /> <br /> * PC Chairs would not offer a presentation slot for these papers at the conference. They could decide to organize an LREC-like mass poster session, as long as the regular papers at the main conference are clearly demarcated and given a greater prominence at the conference, to avoid any further reinforcement of the impression that regular papers with poster presentations are somehow second-rate.<br /> <br /> == 2 Establishing Best Reviewer Award ==<br /> <br /> This action involves encouraging reviewers to do high quality reviews. Authors, other reviewers, and ACs would be asked to rate the quality, tone, helpfulness and accuracy of reviews. PC chairs would be encouraged to establish Best Reviewer Award Committee and give awards to the top k reviewers. The award would be a strong signal on great service that people would include in their CVs. Optionally, ACL could also decide to give the best reviewers discount on conference registration.<br /> <br /> == 3 Training Reviewers ==<br /> <br /> Also, to improve the quality of reviews produced by less experienced members of the PC, PC Chairs could be encouraged to mentor reviewers (e.g., following the model established by ACL 2020 that involves having ACs mentor one or two first-time reviewers). PC Chairs could ask senior reviewers and PhD advisors to help and contribute to a collection of advice (e.g. via blog posts, podcasts, etc. and/or collect the various advice blog posts already produced for previous conferences in one central location). The recipients of the Best Reviewer Awards could also be invited by PC Chairs to write blog posts where they share their experience or they could give tutorials at ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> == 4 Opt-in Revise and Resubmit ==<br /> <br /> One way to reduce current review load is to share the reviews for a rejected and resubmitted paper between two conferences where the authors agree to such review sharing. PC Chairs of one conference (e.g., ACL) could be encouraged to add a field in the submission form to enable authors to indicate that their paper was previously submitted to another conference (e.g., NAACL) to provide the submission number and consent for reviews to be shared. After the submission deadline, PC Chairs would request a one-time report (e.g. a spreadsheet) from the PC chairs of each previous conference containing reviews of these papers. PC chairs could then invite the reviewers of the previous conference to re-review the revised paper, or they could share the previous reviews (anonymized) with the new reviewers. As an alternative, if reviews themselves cannot be shared, reviewers’ names could be shared so that the paper could be sent to (a subset of) the reviewers who first reviewed it.<br /> <br /> Such an opt-in revise and resubmit system has been discussed before but has never been implemented by ACL. Making this optional would allow to gauge community interest in the approach before possibly implementing it on a large scale later.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Short-Term_Reform_Proposals_for_ACL_Reviewing&diff=73661 2020-06-22T07:46:25Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Note: We are soliciting feedback from the ACL community on the short- and long-term reviewing proposals. If you would like to provide feedback, please do so here:'''<br /> <br /> https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=9028kaqAQ0OMdrEjlJf7WQiNRJRoOx9OlzQS6C5hck5URVc2MDZPRFBVNDRRRjBaMjBQVk41RVpMOC4u<br /> <br /> ''These short-term proposals were adopted by the ACL Exec on June 8 as an initial step to improve''<br /> ''reviewing. As we work towards a more comprehensive reform, we welcome feedback on all the aspects''<br /> ''of our current reviewing system (including the short-term proposals). Feedback from our community will be''<br /> ''valuable in informing further development of the system.''<br /> <br /> The rapid growth of submissions and the increasing popularity of preprints have caused '''four problems''' to the current ACL reviewing system:<br /> <br /> '''Review is not blind to all papers.''' Any time a paper is posted on arXiv, it is not blind. The best reviewer for a paper would be familiar with all public work that is relevant to the paper being reviewed, which includes papers that were published on arXiv. When some papers are blind and others are not, our review process is biased and unfair.<br /> <br /> '''Turnaround time is too long.''' A large factor in the incentive to go to arXiv is that turnaround time from when a paper is finished to when it can be made public can be many months, especially when you get several random rejects. Reducing this turnaround time is key to removing the incentive to go to arXiv before review. If turnaround time is fast enough, we can feel better about banning arXiv before review without worrying that it will drive people away to other venues.<br /> <br /> '''Review quality is too low.''' Good, experienced reviewers do not have a strong external incentive to do a good job; we are relying on their internal incentives only. New reviewers do not have good mechanisms for getting trained.<br /> <br /> '''Not enough space for all good papers.''' Program chairs have to reject good papers in order to meet acceptance rates, which are required by some in our community for various reasons. This is unfortunate by itself, and when combined with low review quality and randomness due to just three (perhaps poorly assigned) reviewers, it leads to a large number of resubmissions, dramatically increasing review load.<br /> <br /> To address these problems, the ACL Committee on Reviewing has been working on two proposals for reforming the reviewing system of ACL-related conferences: short-term and long-term. This document presents the short term proposals. It consists of four complementary actions that can be realistically implemented to improve the ACL review process in the near future (while the committee continues to investigate changes that require a longer lead time). These actions jointly address the four problems identified below. They are likely to be accepted by the majority of NLP researchers and they involve keeping existing ACL policies in place, including those regarding [[ACL Policies for Submission, Review and Citation | submission, review and citation]].<br /> <br /> == 1 Establishing ACL Archives (a.k.a. Findings) ==<br /> <br /> The pace of NLP research has increased in recent years, both in terms of the volume of papers submitted to top conferences and in perceived reduction in the “half-life” of papers. At the same time, acceptance rates for leading conferences (e.g., ACL, NAACL, EMNLP) have remained at around 20–25% which means that the absolute volume of rejected papers has actually increased. Therefore, a significant number of papers that fall below the acceptance threshold for an individual conference are still likely to be of a publishable standard. This proposal attempts to address this issue, and find a middle ground in maintaining the selectivity of major conferences (a necessary evil for academic prestige) and providing authors of such “publishable” papers the option to have their peer-reviewed papers published. The papers would be published ''outside'' of the main conference proceedings in a new journal-like outlet that we call '''ACL Archives''' here: (It was given the name ''Findings of EMNLP'' at EMNLP 2020.)<br /> <br /> * The review process would be slightly modified so that it’s possible to separate between the paper ranking process that is used to select papers for the conference and the classification of whether a paper has sufficient substance/quality/novelty to warrant publication in the first place. This could be done as follows: during the review process, in addition to existing criteria (e.g., novelty, rigour, and experimental soundness), reviewers, AC and ultimately PC Chairs would assess papers for ''publishability''. PC Chairs could implement this new criterion as an additional Agree/Disagree field in the review form, possibly responding to the following question (using a 4-point Likert scale): ''Is the paper of a suitable standard to be publishable in its current form, possibly with minor revisions based on reviewer feedback?'' <br /> <br /> * To authors of papers deemed publishable in principle, PC chairs would offer the possibility to have the papers published with the stamp of peer review, but through an alternative mechanism to the main conference proceedings. To avoid any ambiguity with papers published in the main conference proceedings, a new journal-like publication outlet should be created (e.g. ACL Archives, Findings). This would be indexed in the ACL Anthology and there would be a single issue per conference only. When the decision is made to publish in this form, the research would be considered formally published, precluding the possibility of also submitting the paper to the next conference for publication. Authors could choose to opt in or out. Papers for which this is likely to be an attractive option include those for which publication is particularly time-critical (e.g. the novelty of the work would be diminished if submitted to the next conference).<br /> <br /> * PC Chairs would not offer a presentation slot for these papers at the conference. They could decide to organize an LREC-like mass poster session, as long as the regular papers at the main conference are clearly demarcated and given a greater prominence at the conference, to avoid any further reinforcement of the impression that regular papers with poster presentations are somehow second-rate.<br /> <br /> == 2 Establishing Best Reviewer Award ==<br /> <br /> This action involves encouraging reviewers to do high quality reviews. Authors, other reviewers, and ACs would be asked to rate the quality, tone, helpfulness and accuracy of reviews. PC chairs would be encouraged to establish Best Reviewer Award Committee and give awards to the top k reviewers. The award would be a strong signal on great service that people would include in their CVs. Optionally, ACL could also decide to give the best reviewers discount on conference registration.<br /> <br /> == 3 Training Reviewers ==<br /> <br /> Also, to improve the quality of reviews produced by less experienced members of the PC, PC Chairs could be encouraged to mentor reviewers (e.g., following the model established by ACL 2020 that involves having ACs mentor one or two first-time reviewers). PC Chairs could ask senior reviewers and PhD advisors to help and contribute to a collection of advice (e.g. via blog posts, podcasts, etc. and/or collect the various advice blog posts already produced for previous conferences in one central location). The recipients of the Best Reviewer Awards could also be invited by PC Chairs to write blog posts where they share their experience or they could give tutorials at ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> == 4 Opt-in Revise and Resubmit ==<br /> <br /> One way to reduce current review load is to share the reviews for a rejected and resubmitted paper between two conferences where the authors agree to such review sharing. PC Chairs of one conference (e.g., ACL) could be encouraged to add a field in the submission form to enable authors to indicate that their paper was previously submitted to another conference (e.g., NAACL) to provide the submission number and consent for reviews to be shared. After the submission deadline, PC Chairs would request a one-time report (e.g. a spreadsheet) from the PC chairs of each previous conference containing reviews of these papers. PC chairs could then invite the reviewers of the previous conference to re-review the revised paper, or they could share the previous reviews (anonymized) with the new reviewers. As an alternative, if reviews themselves cannot be shared, reviewers’ names could be shared so that the paper could be sent to (a subset of) the reviewers who first reviewed it.<br /> <br /> Such an opt-in revise and resubmit system has been discussed before but has never been implemented by ACL. Making this optional would allow to gauge community interest in the approach before possibly implementing it on a large scale later.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Resolutions&diff=73660 2020-06-21T08:51:56Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>=ACL Resolutions=<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;This is a partial list of ACL resolutions. Older resolutions will be added over time.&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> == June 17, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The Exec passed the resolution of making a Statement on Racial Injustice. <br /> <br /> == June 10, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The Exec accpets the proposal for ACL SIG on Spoken Language Translation. <br /> <br /> == June 8, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The Exec adopts the short-term proposals passed by the ACL Reviewing Committee in the meeting on 2020-04-08.<br /> <br /> [[Short-Term Reform Proposals for ACL Reviewing]]<br /> <br /> == March 24, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The Exec adopts the budget plan for D&amp;I at ACL2020.<br /> <br /> == March 5, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> ACL adopts the ACM Code of Ethics (https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics) in the version adopted June 22nd, 2018, by the ACM Council. In its application to ACL, it is to be read in the contextually appropriate interpretation, e.g., &quot;ACM member&quot; is to be read as &quot;ACL member&quot;. Sec 4.2 should be read as follows<br /> <br /> &quot;4.2 Treat violations of the Code as inconsistent with membership in the ACL. Each ACL member should encourage and support adherence by all members of the CL/NLP community regardless of ACL membership. ACL members who recognize a breach of the Code should consider reporting the violation to the ACL, which may result in remedial action.&quot;<br /> <br /> <br /> == March 4, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> Submissions to Computational Linguistics (CL) will continue to be reviewed single-blind. Authors of accepted CL research papers (including special issue research papers, but excluding survey papers, squibs, and book reviews) will be given the option to present at *ACL/EMNLP conferences. CL research papers accepted for publication starting from the March 2020 issue of CL will be eligible for conference presentation, beginning at the ACL 2020 conference in Seattle, WA, USA. <br /> <br /> == February 24, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) <br /> <br /> We approve modifications to the ACL Test-Of-Time Papers Award.<br /> (https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Test-of-Time_Papers_Award)<br /> <br /> == December 27, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept SIGTYP (SIG on Linguistic Typology) as a new SIG.<br /> <br /> == November 19, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept the proposal from the nominating committee concerning new fellows for 2019. <br /> <br /> == October 2, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept SIGEL (SIG on Endangered Languages) as a new SIG.<br /> <br /> == August 15, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL Exec extends the appointment of Graeme Hirst and Emily M. Bender as PCC co-chairs through 2022.<br /> <br /> == July 28, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> Submissions to CL will be divided to two categories:<br /> * Extended version of past conference paper(s): single-blind reviewing, no conference presentation<br /> * New material not previously published: double-blind reviewing, given oral or poster presentation at *ACL/EMNLP conferences<br /> <br /> == July 28, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> For EMNLP 2019, the maximum compensation for each tutorial is capped at $5000 US dollars. The formula for EMNLP 2019 tutorial payments otherwise remains unchanged, up to this per-tutorial maximum.<br /> <br /> == July 28, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> Tutorial compensation for *ACL conferences henceforth will be up to three free conference registrations for those presenting the tutorials.<br /> <br /> == June 1, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept EquiCL as an ACL Broad Interest Group.<br /> <br /> == May 23, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We pass the motion to establish the ACL test-of-time award<br /> <br /> '''Frequency''': once/year.<br /> <br /> '''Name of award and types of papers''':<br /> <br /> Name of award: Test-of-Time Paper on Computational Linguistics<br /> <br /> Candidate papers: All papers published in venues under the auspices of ACL (including both journal and conference papers)<br /> <br /> '''How many''': 2 per year, one for papers published exactly 10 year back, one for those published exactly 25 years back.<br /> <br /> '''Who nominates''': Award committee: this committee should decide criteria (to be nominated by exec for two years)<br /> <br /> '''Who judges''': Expert committee: all ACL conferences’ general chairs, program chairs and ACL presidents in the interval ([current year-5]- [current year]) who don’t have COIs with the nominated papers.<br /> <br /> '''At ACL''': a session with winning paper presentations will be held <br /> <br /> == May 7, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the following proposal concerning ACL members at-large:<br /> <br /> * According to the ACL Constitution, the ACL Executive Committee has three members at-large, elected for terms of three years by the members of the Association.<br /> * The ACL Exec recommends that the ACL Nominating Committee strive to nominate members-at-large from the three major geographic regions on an annual rotating basis.<br /> * The roles for the members-at-large will be assigned by the current ACL President on an as-needed basis, and may change throughout their terms. These roles will not require specialized knowledge beyond that of a well-informed, active member of the ACL community.<br /> * As set forth in the Process for Ad Hoc ACL Leadership Roles (https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Process_for_Ad_Hoc_ACL_Leadership_Roles), the ACL Exec will appoint additional positions that require specialized expertise.<br /> <br /> == April 19, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> We approve the 2019 ACL Distinguished Service Award (DSA) awardee [name withheld] selected by the Nominating Committee.<br /> <br /> == April 13, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> We accept the LTA Nominating Committee's recommendation to give the 2019 Lifetime Achievement Award to [name withheld]. <br /> <br /> == March 15, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We pass the resolution that Graeme Hirst and Emily Bender are the co-chairs of the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of 2019.<br /> <br /> == December 23, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We adopt the [[Process for Ad Hoc ACL Leadership Roles]].<br /> <br /> == December 12, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approved: (1) the ACL anti-harassment policy implementation procedure, in the version of 2018-08-08, be adopted except for the first line of the section on handling complaints (page 4), and (2) the ACL anti-harassment policy implementation procedure be amended such that complaints will be considered only if received within 365 days of the alleged incident, or if the alleged incident occurred between 2016-10-18 and 2018-11-30.<br /> <br /> == December 3, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept the proposal from the nominating committee concerning new fellows for 2018. <br /> <br /> == November 1, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We remove the policy on funding workshops not held at one of the *ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> == October 25, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approved the creation of ACL Special Interest Group on Representation Learning (SIGREP).<br /> <br /> == June 25, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We adopt a [[Distinguished Service Award]].<br /> <br /> == June 6, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept the following motion:<br /> <br /> * the exec requests that the nominating committee select candidates for the next member at large that are uniquely qualified to serve as information chair, independent of geographic region. <br /> * The exec further requests that the nominating committee interview potential nominees to assess their qualifications, and only nominate members that have the time, willingness, and the experience to lead a software team to procure new digital services as well as maintain exiting legacy software, and oversee the transition from legacy software to newer software solutions.<br /> <br /> == May 2, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the constitution and the initial slate of board members of Asia-Pacific Chapter of ACL (AACL)<br /> <br /> == March 14, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the candidates of CL editor. The candidates will be asked in order.<br /> <br /> == February 23, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the three candidates for a new TACL editor-in-chief, which will be approached by the search committee.<br /> <br /> == February 16, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the proposal for training for harassment complaint responders:<br /> <br /> (a) we accept Anne Grant's proposal; <br /> <br /> (b) Emily M. Bender and Graeme Hirst liaise with Anne Grant to develop the course; <br /> <br /> (c) we boot up a complaints committee forthwith so that as many of its members as possible can attend the training at ACL in Melbourne on the day before the tutorial day and Exec meeting.<br /> <br /> == February 7, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We adopt the following rules concerning conflicts of interest in the nominating committee when electing new fellows:<br /> <br /> 1. Members of the nominating committee are not allowed to contribute to new nominations (as nominators or recommenders) while serving on the committee.<br /> <br /> 2. Members who have earlier contributed to nominations that remain in the system should if possible ask other people to replace them (as nominator or recommender). If this is not possible, the concerned member should declare that they have a conflict of interest and not take part in the evaluation of that nomination (see point 3 below).<br /> <br /> 3. Members who have a conflict of interest with respect to a nomination should declare this and not take part in the evaluation of that nomination. Conflicts of interest are assumed to exist if committee members have contributed to the nomination (see point 2 above), if they have a close family relationship to the nominee, if they have co-authored a paper or collaborated with the nominee in the previous five years, if they are employed at the same company or institution as the nominee, or if they have other relations to the nominee that can be seen to constitute a conflict of interest.<br /> <br /> 4. If one or more conflicts of interest exist, the nominating committee shall first evaluate and rank the nominees for which no conflicts exist. The remaining nominees shall then each be evaluated and inserted into the ranking by the subset of the committee that does not have a conflict for that nominee.<br /> <br /> == January 24, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The Exec approve the following proposal concerning rules and procedures for electing Fellows: <br /> <br /> 1. Members of the Exec and the Nominating Committee are not be eligible to become Fellows while serving. People should be informed about this before being nominated to the Exec.<br /> <br /> 2. Nominators should be informed about the outcome of their nominations but without specific information about why a particular nominee was not elected.<br /> <br /> 3. Information about criteria and conditions for selection (including the 0.2% rule) should be provided in the instructions for nominators.<br /> <br /> == January 13, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approved the following two changes concerning ACL membership registration/renewal: (1) We open the registration for the next membership year on December 1, instead of January 1. (2) For all members who registered after December 1, 2017, their memberships can be rolled over to 2018.<br /> <br /> == December 30, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL Exec will publish the the diversity statistics of 2017.<br /> <br /> == December 21, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept the offer from MIT Press to give ACL members a discount.<br /> <br /> == December 2, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept the proposal from the nominating committee concerning new fellows for 2017. <br /> <br /> == November 29, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept the proposal from MIT Press to publish both CL and TACL (for an annual flat fee + expenses as specified in the proposal).<br /> <br /> == November 22, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approved the proposal for creating the Asia-Pacific Chapter of ACL.<br /> <br /> == October 30, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> Recommendations for submission, review and citation for *ACL conferences and TACL:<br /> <br /> We approved the amendment to the policy, by changing the first paragraph from:<br /> <br /> The following policies are adopted for *ACL conferences (ACL, NAACL, EACL) and the TACL journal in the interest of maintaining and protecting double-blind review without sacrificing the positive effects of preprint publishing.<br /> <br /> to:<br /> <br /> The following policies are adopted for *ACL conferences (ACL, NAACL, EACL) and the TACL journal in the interest of maintaining and protecting double-blind review without sacrificing the positive effects of preprint publishing. We recommend conferences and workshop that are co-located with *ACL conferences and use double-blind review to adopt the same policies unless this conflicts with other policies they have.<br /> <br /> == October 13, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> Recommendations for submission, review and citation for *ACL conferences and TACL:<br /> <br /> We accept the proposal for new policies and guidelines and charge the working group with making necessary changes to the document based on the comments from the exec.<br /> <br /> == September 25, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approved the extension of the deadline for fellows nominations by one month, to November 1, 2017.<br /> <br /> == September 7, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We adopt the amendment of the resolution on the search committee for the TACL editors by replacing <br /> <br /> 2. The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering committee + the current editors-in-chief + Graeme Hirst + Yejin Choi + Joakim Nivre (all three representatives of the ACL exec).<br /> <br /> with<br /> <br /> 2. The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering committee + the current editors-in-chief + the CL editor + Graeme Hirst + Yejin Choi + Joakim Nivre (all three representatives of the ACL exec).<br /> <br /> The resolution after the amendment is as follows:<br /> <br /> 1. An ad hoc search committee shall be formed to appoint to new editors in chief for TACL, to replace the resigning editors.<br /> <br /> 2. The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering committee + the current editors-in-chief + the CL editor + Graeme Hirst + Yejin Choi + Joakim Nivre (all three representatives of the ACL exec).<br /> <br /> 3. The search committee shall be chaired by Ido Dagan.<br /> <br /> 4. The search committee shall discuss names and come up with a ranked list of acceptable suggestions to the ACL exec.<br /> <br /> 5. The exec shall then vote on the ranked list.<br /> <br /> 6. The chair of the search committee shall contact the people on the ranked list, in order, until two have accepted. Should less than two invitees accept, the search process will restart with step 4.<br /> <br /> == August 31, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We adopt the following plan for finding a new editor for CL with Lori Levin as the chair of the search committee:<br /> <br /> 1. Form a search committee: The search committee should consist of people who are knowledgeable about a broad range of areas in computational linguistics and human language technologies and are committed to the genre of long, comprehensive journal articles as valuable documents in a research community.<br /> <br /> 1a. All past CL editors are invited to be on the search committee.<br /> <br /> 1b. TACL editors are invited to join the search committee.<br /> <br /> 1c. Members of the ACL exec are invited to join the search committee. <br /> <br /> 1d. If not enough members of the ACL exec are available to join the search committee, or if not enough people with experience from the CL editorial board have joined, we will extend the invitation to NAACL and EACL boards.<br /> <br /> 1e. If the committee does not meet our new diversity requirements, the CL editor will be asked to propose additional people with experience from the CL editorial board who can be invited to balance the representation.<br /> <br /> 2. Formulate a job description: The CL editor will be asked to provide a first draft, which the search committee can review and possibly modify.<br /> <br /> 3. Send the job description to the ACL mailing list and ask for nominations/volunteers with a deadline one month after the call (but preferably not later than November 1).<br /> <br /> 4. Identify additional candidates and ask all candidates to submit a vision statement.<br /> <br /> 5. Rank all candidates by email vote.<br /> <br /> 6. Contact candidates starting from the top ranked candidate.<br /> <br /> == August 21, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> 1. An ad hoc search committee shall be formed to appoint new editors in chief for TACL, to replace the resigning editors.<br /> <br /> 2. The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering committee + the current editors-in-chief + Graeme Hirst + Yejin Choi + Joakim Nivre (all three representatives of the ACL exec).<br /> <br /> 3. The search committee shall be chaired by Ido Dagan.<br /> <br /> 4. The search committee shall discuss names and come up with a ranked list of acceptable suggestions to the ACL exec.<br /> <br /> 5. The exec shall then vote on the ranked list.<br /> <br /> 6. The chair of the search committee shall contact the people on the ranked list, in order, until two have accepted. Should less than two invitees accept, the search process will restart with step 4.<br /> <br /> == August 18, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We appointed a working group to work out revised policies and guidelines for handling preprint papers in the review process for *ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> The working group is composed of twelve people:<br /> <br /> Jennifer Foster (ACL Exec)<br /> <br /> Marti Hearst (ACL Exec)<br /> <br /> Ming Zhou (ACL Exec)<br /> <br /> Joakim Nivre (ACL Exec)<br /> <br /> Paola Merlo (ACL Exec, CL editor)<br /> <br /> Lillian Lee (TACL editor)<br /> <br /> Iryna Guryvech (ACL2018 program co-chair)<br /> <br /> Yusuke Miyao (ACL2018 program co-chair)<br /> <br /> Amanda Stent (NAACL2018 program co-chair)<br /> <br /> Heng Ji (NAACL2018 program co-chair)<br /> <br /> Chris Manning<br /> <br /> Jason Eisner<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The working group shall submit a proposal for policies and guidelines that can be adopted for the 2018 conferences no later than October 1, 2017. The proposal shall specify under what conditions preprint papers (and other papers that have already been published in some form) can be submitted to *ACL conferences. It shall also provide guidelines for the citation of such papers and for the review of the papers themselves as well as papers that cite or fail to cite them.<br /> <br /> 2. The working group may in addition propose actions to be implemented as part of a long-term strategy to evolve our publishing and reviewing models over time.<br /> <br /> 3. The working group shall be chaired by Joakim Nivre.<br /> <br /> == August 13, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL Exec approves the extention of Lillian Lee's term as the co-editor-in-chief of TACL to the end of 2019.<br /> <br /> == April 17, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the guideline on remote conference participation: [[ACL Guidelines on Remote Conference Participation]].<br /> <br /> == April 9, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> (1) We approve revising the SIG creation guidelines, changing &quot;hold elections for these positions every two years&quot; to &quot;hold elections for these positions at least every three years&quot;. <br /> <br /> (2) We approve the creation of the special interest group on NLP and Education (SIG EDU).<br /> <br /> == April 1, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL Exec adopts the ACL policy on political statements and actions (https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Policy_on_Political_Statements_and_Actions)<br /> <br /> == March 15, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL Exec adopts the new rules and criteria for ACL fellows.<br /> <br /> == February 4, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL Exec approves the statement about the immigration ban.<br /> <br /> == January 25, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the [[procedure for composing the new Nominating Committee]]<br /> <br /> == January 8, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL shall create an Ad Hoc Committee on Anti-Harassment Procedures for the 2017-18 period, <br /> including representatives of the ACL Exec as well as each chapter board, with a remit as follows:<br /> <br /> Ad Hoc Committee on Anti-Harassment Procedures<br /> <br /> The charge of the committee is to research and document best practices for handling complaints<br /> under the new anti-harassment policy and to make concrete recommendations to the ACL Executive<br /> on what procedures should be followed. The ACL Exec requests that a preliminary report<br /> be made to by June 30, 2017 in order to support discussion at the 2017 ACL Exec meeting with<br /> a final report by June 30, 2018.<br /> <br /> == November 24, 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL exec accepts the recommendations of the 2016 Fellows Selection Committee.<br /> <br /> == November 24, 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> ACL adopts the [[ACL Conflict-of-interest policy]], [[Whistleblower Policy]] and [[ACL Document Retention and Destruction Policy]].<br /> <br /> == October 18, 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL exec approves the Anti-Harassment Policy: [[Anti-Harassment Policy]].<br /> <br /> == September 14, 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve that the ACL Executive Committee proposes to the Membership that the ACL Constitution is amended by replacing the current Article V, Item 5, reading as follows:<br /> <br /> There shall be a Nominating Committee consisting of the three most recent Past Presidents, each serving for the three years following their own Presidency. The member whose term is about to expire shall chair the Committee. In case of a vacancy the Executive shall appoint a member to serve for the appropriate period.<br /> <br /> with the following text:<br /> <br /> There shall be a Nominating Committee consisting of the three most recent Past Presidents, each serving for the three years following their own Presidency, and six ACL Fellows selected subject to diversity requirements set forth by the Executive. The Past President whose term is about to expire shall chair the Nominating Committee for a period of one year. In case of a vacancy on the committee, the Executive shall appoint a member to serve for the remainder of the term of the vacating committee member.<br /> <br /> == September 12, 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) <br /> <br /> In order to better disseminate the outcomes of ACL Executive meetings to the ACL Membership and ACL Exec Members, for future meetings, the ACL Exec will make available public minutes of its meetings. These minutes may exclude portions covering discussion of matters that are deemed sensitive, personal or confidential. For ACL Exec members, the Secretary shall make known to new members of the Exec how they can access the archive of minutes of ACL Exec meetings. In addition, resolutions and agreed decisions (of policy or practice, even though they do not have the formal status of a resolution) made at ACL Exec meetings will be extracted and placed on public web pages. This extraction of resolutions and decisions (only) will be applied retrospectively, beginning with the ACL Exec meetings of 2011.<br /> <br /> == September 8, 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL exec approved adding Stuart Shieber as a member of the TACL Steering Committee.<br /> <br /> == August 23 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL exec decides (i) that talks at the ACL, NAACL, EACL and EMNLP conferences shall be video-recorded, (ii) that the recordings shall be given persistent storage and made available through links in the ACL anthology, and (iii) that the cost for making and storing the recordings shall be covered by the ACL as an organization outside the specific conference budgets.<br /> <br /> == August 19 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) We accept the criteria for selecting the General Chair and Program Co-Chair:<br /> <br /> [[Selecting a General Chair]]<br /> <br /> [[Selecting a Program Co-Chair]]<br /> <br /> == August 7 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) ACL no longer gives best student paper award.<br /> <br /> == August 7 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The exec accepts the report of the ad hoc committee on actions for equity and diversity and agrees with all seven recommendations in principle. The exec directs the ad hoc committee to proceed with an implementation plan for the recommendations to be presented to the exec for discussion and approval.<br /> <br /> == May 29 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) We accept the LTA Nominating Committee's recommendation to give the 2016 Lifetime Achievement Award to [name withheld].<br /> <br /> == May 8 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # The ACL exec approves the policy on COI handling: http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conflict-of-interest_policy.<br /> <br /> == March 21 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> #The ACL exec approves the policy that TACL editors-in-chief are allowed to be appointed for a third term of up to three years.<br /> #Lillian Lee is appointed to a second term of 1 year and 9 months (January 2017 to September 2018)<br /> <br /> == March 17 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> #The ACL exec approves the policy that all ACL conferences and sub-events must use START.<br /> #We will make a deal with Softconf that covers all ACL events for a single annual payment.<br /> <br /> == November 25 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # We approve the creation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Nominating Committees and ACL Fellows<br /> <br /> The charge of the committee is to re-examine ACL policies and practices on the make-up of and procedures of nominating<br /> committees and the ACL Fellows program, and to make concrete recommendations to the ACL Executive on whether and how<br /> the current policies and practices should be changed. The remit encompasses the lifetime achievement awards election<br /> committee, the ACL Executive Nominating Committee, the ACL Fellows selection committee, and the ACL Fellows program. A<br /> primary concern is to consider whether there are appropriate ways of improving the actual or perceived openness,<br /> inclusiveness, diversity, and impartiality of these programs. The committee may also want to consider roles and<br /> responsibilities for ACL Fellows. The ACL Exec requests that the committee make a final report by June 30, 2016, so that<br /> any changes can be considered at the 2016 ACL Exec meeting, and put in place for the following year.<br /> == August 17 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # We approve the creation of SIGUR, a Special Interest Group on Uralic Languages.<br /> <br /> == June 26, 2015 ==<br /> <br /> 1. An ad hoc search committee shall be formed to appoint a new editor in chief for TACL, to join the current editor(s)-in-chief.<br /> <br /> 2. The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering cmte + the current editor(s)-in-chief<br /> + Graeme Hirst + Gertjan van Noord + Chris Manning (all three as representatives of the current ACL exec).<br /> <br /> 3. The search committee shall be chaired by Ido Dagan.<br /> <br /> 4. The search committee shall discuss names and come up with a ranked list of acceptable suggestions to the ACL exec.<br /> <br /> 5. The exec shall then vote on the ranked list.<br /> <br /> 6. The chair of the search committee shall contact the people on the ranked list, in order, until one accepts.<br /> Should all invitees decline, the search process will restart with step 4.<br /> <br /> == May 20, 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # Until 2020, Transactions of the ACL shall have three co-editors in chief in order to complete the work needed to bring TACL out of start-up mode into a fully established state.<br /> <br /> == May 3, 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> # We approve the CL publication agreement change proposed by Oracle for an article authored by Oracle employees. In summary, this replaces the second sentence of the agreement:<br /> <br /> By your signature below you hereby grant to the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), effective as of the date of this agreement, all your right, title, and interest including copyright in and to the Article.<br /> <br /> by: <br /> <br /> By your signature below you hereby grant to the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), effective as of the date of this agreement, a five-year exclusive license in and to the Article according to the terms of this Agreement.<br /> <br /> Later parts of the agreement already give ACL non-exclusive rights to publish the article without time limit. The full red-lined agreement is attached.<br /> <br /> I propose this on the understanding that we will move expeditiously towards providing a similar (but likely not identically worded) arrangement, not involving copyright transfer, for all authors, following further discussion by the Executive.<br /> <br /> == March 3, 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # ACL will split the surplus or loss on ACL 2015 with AFNLP<br /> <br /> == February 10, 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # Pushpak Bhattacharyya is hereby appointed as the representative of the ACL executive committee to AFNLP (Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing) for the duration of his term on the ACL executive committee.<br /> <br /> == January 2015 ==<br /> <br /> 1. An ad hoc search committee shall be formed to find a replacement for Michael Collins as TACL co-editor-in-chief.<br /> <br /> 2. The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering cmte + Lillian Lee (TACL co-editor-in-chief) + Graeme Hirst + Gertan van Noord + Haifeng Wang (all three as representatives of the current ACL exec).<br /> <br /> 3. The search committee shall be chaired by Ido Dagan.<br /> <br /> 4. The search committee shall discuss names and come up with a ranked list of acceptable suggestions to the ACL exec.<br /> <br /> 5. The exec shall then vote on the ranked list.<br /> <br /> 6. The chair of the search committee shall contact the people on the ranked list, in order, until one accepts. Should all invitees decline, the search process will restart with step 4.<br /> <br /> == January 15, 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # The Executive Board of the Association for Computational Linguistics expresses its gratitude to Chiaki Nemoto for her work as bookkeeper for the Association for the last five years. Chiaki has been instrumental in bringing order to the Association's bookkeeping and financial records, and we are deeply appreciative of her work.<br /> <br /> == November 26, 2014 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # The ACL exec approves the creation of the SIGSLAV Special Interest Group on Slavic Natural Language Processing<br /> <br /> == August 15, 2014 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) <br /> # The ACL exec appoints Hwee Tou Ng from the National University of Singapore as book review editor for Computational Linguistics. The position has a term of five years.<br /> <br /> == June 1, 2014 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) <br /> # The Executive Board of the Association for Computational Linguistics,<br /> Inc., a not-for-profit organization registered in New Jersey as<br /> charity number CH-0820600, hereby confirms that it has authorized the<br /> Treasurer of its European Chapter to operate and be responsible for<br /> all its euro-denominated bank and investment accounts in Europe. The<br /> Board further confirms that the present Treasurer of its European<br /> Chapter is Dr Michael Rosner of the University of Malta.<br /> <br /> == January 10, 2014==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) <br /> # An ad hoc search committee shall be formed to find a replacement for Dekang Lin as TACL co-editor-in-chief.<br /> # The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering cmte + Michael Collins (TACL co-editor-in-chief) + Graeme Hirst + Gertan van Noord + Haifeng Wang (all three as representatives of the current ACL exec).<br /> # The search committee shall be chaired by Ido Dagan.<br /> # The search committee shall discuss names and come up with a ranked list of acceptable suggestions to the ACL exec.<br /> # The exec shall then vote on the ranked list.<br /> # The chair of the search committee shall contact the people on the ranked list, in order, until one accepts. Should all invitees decline, the search process will restart with step 4.<br /> <br /> ==July 16, 2013==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The exec engages Mr Tom Dartnell of Nisivoccia LLP as our new accountant as per his letter of engagement and we accept his recommendation that he start with an audit.<br /> <br /> ==June 10, 2013==<br /> <br /> (FAILED) The program chairs of the ACL 2013 conference will be authorized to participate in the JAIR award track in 2013<br /> [http://www.jair.org/awardedpapers.html http://www.jair.org/awardedpapers.html]<br /> <br /> ==May 7, 2013==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL exec approves the ACL Policy for DOI assignment and the ACL Information Office budget in separate resolutions<br /> <br /> # ACL policy for digital object identifier (DOI) assignment:<br /> ## Allow the ACL Information Officer to revoke the current ACM­/ACL agreement regarding DOIs he/she sees fit within the next twelve (12) months;<br /> ## Allow the ACL Information Officer to pursue registering the ACL to become a DOI granting authority;<br /> ## Allow the ACL Information Officer to register DOIs on the behalf of the Transactions of Computational Linguistics journal (TACL).<br /> # ACL Information Office budget (Note: supersedes / revokes previous resolution (Aug 2, 2011):<br /> ## Approve a budget of 10,000 USD for the ACL Information Office to use during the 2013-2014 year (Apr 2013 -- Mar 2014), where surpluses from the budget can be rolled over to subsequent years;<br /> ## Approve that the ACL Webmaster part-time position be given a salary of up to 30 USD / hour.<br /> <br /> ==Oct 16, 2012==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The editors of any ACL journal may submit to that journal, but in such<br /> cases the submitted paper will be handled by a third party. The same<br /> procedure will be followed for any papers submitted by those who work<br /> in the editor's laboratory, or who are otherwise closely associated<br /> with the editor in such a way that a conflict of interest might arise<br /> or be perceived.<br /> <br /> For the purposes of this proposal, the third party handling the<br /> submitted paper will generally be one of the other editors. In the<br /> case of Computational Linguistics, the panel of editors consists of<br /> the editor-in-chief, the squibs editor and the book review editor; in<br /> the case of TACL, the panel of editors consists of the two<br /> editors-in-chief. In any circumstances agreed as exceptional by the<br /> relevant panel of editors, some other party may be asked to handle the<br /> submitted paper; the guiding principle is that there should be no<br /> perceived conflict of interest.<br /> <br /> ==Aug 20, 2012==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) A person can register for ACL and CIPS simultaneously and receive a<br /> 20% discount on the membership fee from each organization.<br /> <br /> ==June 15, 2012==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL exec approves the creation of a new SIG on Language<br /> Technologies for the Socio-Economic Sciences and the Humanities<br /> (SIGHUM).<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Mar 18, 2012==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) We accept the LTA Nominating Committee's recommendation to give the<br /> 2012 Lifetime Achievement Award to [name withheld].<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL executive committee approves the request from the editors of<br /> ACL TACL that reviewing of paper submissions to TACL should be double<br /> blind. More specifically, reviewers will not know the identities of<br /> the authors. Action editors and the journal editors will have access<br /> to the author identities.<br /> <br /> ==Dec 23, 2011==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL exec approves the creation of Sections as internal structures<br /> of SIGLEX, each having an elected representative as an additional<br /> officer, with the corresponding change of their constitution. The<br /> first Section will be on Multiword Expressions. New Sections can be<br /> introduced when necessary.<br /> <br /> ==Nov 23, 2011==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL exec approves the creation of the SIGSLP special interest<br /> group on speech and language processing for assistive technologies.<br /> <br /> ==Aug 2, 2011==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)Motion regarding Ongoing Maintenance of the ACL Portal Website<br /> <br /> Background:<br /> Currently we do not have any programming support allocated to the Portal. We<br /> either have to abandon the Portal by default (eventually it will need some<br /> maintenance) or develop it further, if only minimally. <br /> <br /> Proposal:<br /> <br /> 1. We email the membership to see if we can find someone who has a<br /> student who knows Drupal (the content management system used by the website)<br /> and is able to work on a casual basis paid for between 4 and 8 hours per<br /> week. An appropriate rate of payment would be $30 per hour. The total<br /> cost of this would be between $6000 and $12000 per year.<br /> <br /> 2. We establish an ad hoc 'information services committee' consisting<br /> of three people who take responsibility for determining and directing the<br /> activities of the portal maintainer. <br /> <br /> ==Jun 28, 2011==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) A summer school on NLP &amp; IR is being held in cooperation with SIGIR <br /> just before SIGIR-2011 (see reference to http://nlp.blcu.edu.cn/others/nlpir-ss/ in http://www.sigir.org/events/events-upcoming.html).<br /> <br /> We hereby approve 1 and 2.<br /> <br /> (1) The summer school will be held in cooperation with the ACL<br /> <br /> (2) The ACL will sponsor the summer school for $1000<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Jun 3, 2011==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL executive committee appoints Haifeng Wang as its liaison to<br /> AFNLP for the remainder of his term on the ACL executive committee.<br /> <br /> ==Dec 17, 2010==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) New eligibility criteria for reduced membership fees to start in 2011:<br /> <br /> Regular rates: U.S., Canada, E.U. (except Romania and Bulgaria), Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, European microstates, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, U.A.E.<br /> <br /> Reduced rates: All other countries. <br /> <br /> ==Dec 15, 2010==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> 1 Background<br /> <br /> Historically our journal production costs have consisted of two elements:<br /> the part-time editorial assistance hired by the editor, and the production<br /> work executed and managed by MIT Press. The part-time editorial assistance<br /> costs around A$15k per annum; this pays for one day a week of Suzy Howlett,<br /> our editorial assistant. The MIT Press costs, which cover copyediting,<br /> proofreading, typesetting, web hosting plus ancillary things like marketing<br /> and the handling of rights permissions have typically been on the order of<br /> US$45-50k per annum. <br /> <br /> 2 The New Model<br /> <br /> We have worked out a new cost structure for the MIT Press production costs.<br /> There are a number of details here, but the major substantive elements are<br /> that (a) we are reducing some of the production costs by using a LaTeX-aware<br /> copy editor; and (b) MIT Press has agreed to substantially reduce its<br /> management overhead. Consequently, the new target per annum MIT Press cost<br /> is about US$28k, representing a saving of at least US$17k per annum. This<br /> figure assumes the journal stays the size that it currently is (640 pages<br /> per annum), so the number will go up if we publish more; but the per-page<br /> production costs are now vastly improved (note that the total costs include<br /> a relatively fixed-cost management element and a variable production cost<br /> based on # of pages).<br /> <br /> 3 The Proposed Package<br /> <br /> My proposal consists of two elements. <br /> <br /> [1] We sign up to the new MITP model for a five year period; and <br /> [2] we invest some of the savings -- I would suggest somewhere around US$5k<br /> per annum for the period-- in further developing our instance of the Open<br /> Journal System web-based manuscript management machinery. <br /> <br /> The aim of this second element is to further streamline our processes with<br /> two aims in mind: (a) to enable us to handle larger volumes (and in<br /> particular to cater for some possible outcomes of the ongoing<br /> conference--&gt;journal discussions), and (b) to build infrastructure that will<br /> make it easier for us to at some point go completely independent of third<br /> party publishers, should we choose to do that.<br /> <br /> 4 Risks and Benefits<br /> <br /> I considered trying to replace MITP with our own resources; my estimate is<br /> that this would require us, amongst other things, to hire a one-day-per-week<br /> production manager. MIT Press has got very close to matching the costs of<br /> that by reducing their management overhead. For us this is less risky,<br /> since it's quite hard for us to find people to do this kind of work, but<br /> under the proposal model, that's MIT Press's problem. Similarly, I explored<br /> hiring our own LaTeX-aware copy editors; I found an excellent candidate (who<br /> it now looks like MIT Press will use for CL) and had him to do some test<br /> editing; he's very good. But accessing this resource through MIT Press<br /> again has the benefit that if he goes sick or otherwise becomes unavailable,<br /> it's MIT Press's job to find a replacement.<br /> <br /> ==Nov 5, 2010==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL executive committee approves a new procedure for the sponsorship committee as set forth in the following document.<br /> [http://www.aclweb.org/downloads/ACLSponsorshipCommitteeProcedures.doc Word Doc]<br /> [http://www.aclweb.org/downloads/ACLSponsorshipCommitteeProcedures.pdf PDF]<br /> <br /> ==Apr 14, 2010==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) Following the election of a Vice President Elect for 2010 from outside the Asia-Pacific region, which was the target region for last year's nominations by the nominating committee, the ACL Exec guides the nominating committee to nominate again candidates from that region. As implied by the ACL constitution, nominations from the floor will not be limited to any region. <br /> <br /> ==Mar 22, 2010==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL executive committee allocates $3600 to Min Yen Kan for work on curating the ACL Anthology. <br /> <br /> ==Mar 11, 2010==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL Exec would like to explore in depth the initiative for establishing a journal venue for conference publications, following the guidelines and open issues discussed at its teleconfernce on February 22, 2010. To that end, a committee is formed which will prepare a detailed proposal that can be brought up for vote by the exec. The target deadline for the committee to present the detailed proposal and recommendations to the Exec is April 15, 2010. The committee will consist of the following members:&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ido Dagan and Hwee Tou - co-chairs&lt;br&gt; Robert Dale - as CL editor&lt;br&gt; Graeme Hirst - as Treasurer&lt;br&gt; Dragomir Radev - as Secreatary&lt;br&gt; Paola Merlo and Ken Church<br /> <br /> ==Jan 27, 2010==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) That Ben Phelan be paid the sum of A$15000 for the development of the ACL Member Portal, with this payment being made in two stages; one payment of AUD10000 by end January 2010, and the remaining A$5000 paid on June 30, 2010, this being the end of the six month period during which any bugs and problems identified in the portal are to be attended to. <br /> <br /> ==November 13, 2009==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) ACL Endorsement of Scientific Meetings &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The ACL is pleased to endorse scientific meetings organized by other bodies, so long as the following criteria are met:&lt;br&gt; <br /> ##It is an open scientific conference related to computational linguistics<br /> ##Acceptance of submissions is based on genuine peer review<br /> ##The conference appears to be competently organized<br /> ##ACL membership materials are distributed at the conference<br /> ##Understanding that there is no implication that ACL will host proceedings in the ACL Anthology<br /> <br /> In order to receive ACL endorsement, please contact the ACL Secretary at [mailto:secretary@aclweb.org secretary@aclweb.org]. Please indicate how the conference meets the ACL's criteria.<br /> <br /> ==October 21, 2009==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL exec extends the contract for the Computational Linguistics journal with MIT press by one more year, to include the 2010 calendar year. <br /> <br /> ==July 7, 2009==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL exec approves the creation of the SIGFSM special interest group on finite-state methods.&lt;br&gt;Ido Dagan <br /> <br /> ==March 11, 2009==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL exec approved the creation of the SIGMT special interest group on machine translation.&lt;br&gt; Ido Dagan <br /> <br /> ==September 3, 2008==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) A Proposal for an ACL Member Portal&lt;br&gt; Robert Dale 6th August 2008 &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; This document proposes that we put in place an ACL Member Portal on the web by 1st January 2009. <br /> <br /> ==August 2008==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL exec approved the creation of the SIGBIOMED special interest group on biomedical NLP.&lt;br&gt;Steven Bird <br /> <br /> ==June 10, 2008==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) Shadow Account Practices&lt;br&gt; Eduard Hovy, Donia Scott, Kathy McCoy, Mike Rosner, Diane Litman (reconstructed by Kathy McCoy 2/3/04) &lt;p&gt;Goal&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;To set up limited financial independence for ACL's daughter organizations (ACL chapters and SIGs).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1. Basic Structure: Shadow Accounts&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1.1 All funds brought in by any ACL activity (conference, chapter conference, workshop, SIG workshop, grant, donation, membership, journal fees, etc.) ultimately belong to the ACL, unless explicitly specified to the contrary.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1.2 To give chapters and SIGs a certain amount of operational flexibility, and to facilitate affiliation of the ACL with other organizations, so-called Shadow Accounts will be set up. These accounts will record the amount of funds `belonging' to the daughter organizations.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1.3 The funds in a shadow account might be held either in a bank account separate from the principal ACL account, or they might simply be an amount earmarked as `belonging' to the daughter organization, or a mixture of the two. That is, the shadow account is a (possibly) virtual sub-account of the accounts of the international ACL.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1.4 A shadow account must be dissolved and its funds returned to the ACL either upon request of the ACL Executive, or when the daughter organization is dissolved.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2. Signature Authority and Usage&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2.1 The shadow accounts will be managed by the ACL Treasurer, unless he or she allocates (partial or full) management to the daughter organization.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2.2 If management of a shadow account is allocated to the daughter organization, both the ACL Treasurer and the Treasurer of the organization will have signature authority over the shadow account.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2.3 Funds in shadow accounts can be spent by the daughter organizations without requiring formal approval from the central ACL Executive or its Treasurer, as long as this usage is consistent with the policies of the ACL. Usage of the funds in unusual ways requires approval from the ACL Executive.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2.4 To ensure consistency with ACL policies, the ACL Secretary will maintain a list of approved purposes for which shadow account funds can be used.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3. Satellite Shadow Accounts&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3.1 All funds brought into a shadow account under conditions that explicitly forbid the funds to belong to the International ACL as a whole (for example, grants made by national institutions for local usage), will reside in satellite shadow accounts.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3.2 Such satellite shadow accounts will also include any monies brought in for activities that are independent of the International ACL (e.g., a grant to set up a website of training in CL within the chapter area) or monies tied to other specific projects (e.g., a grant specifically for students within the chapter area to attend ACL conferences).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3.3 Satellite accounts will be managed by the Treasurer of the daughter organization.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;4. Reporting&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3.1 Every year at the annual business meeting of the ACL (and also at the ACL Executive meeting that precedes it during the ACL conference), the daughter organization must provide full accounting of its financial activities during the past year, including the activity of satellite shadow accounts.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;4.2 The daughter organization must provide full accounting of its financial activities to its own members at least once a year.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;5. Maintaining a Minimum&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;5.1 At the beginning of every financial year, the ACL Treasurer will ensure that each shadow account contains a specified minimum, by transferring from the ACL central account the requisite amount. This minimum will not take into account the contents of satellite shadow accounts.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;5.2 At the time of writing, the minimum for chapters is US$5000 and for SIGs is US$0.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;6. Income and Loss&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;6.1 Unless explicitly designated otherwise by the giver, income derived from the activities of a daughter organization will be added to its shadow account. In the case of joint ACL-chapter conferences, the income will be split. A portion of the income will go to the shadow account and the remainder will belong to the ACL and be held in its central account.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;6.2 At present, the above mentioned split will be 50-50 for chapters.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;6.3 In a similar way, unless explicitly designated otherwise, any loss resulting from the activities of a daughter organization will be borne against the shadow account if the daughter. In the case of a joint ACL-chapter conference, any will be borne according to the same split proportion as the income. Any loss beyond the amount in a shadow account will be taken over by the central ACL. In such a situation, the central ACL will continue to ensure that the involved shadow account contains the agreed-upon minimum at the beginning of each financial year. However, it is expected that the portion of loss incurred by ACL will be paid back to ACL by the chapter, on the basis of the surplus from subsequent chapter activities.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;6.4 Should the ACL Exec deem that the shadow account is consistently in a loss situation (e.g., because of the chapter acting in a fiscally irresponsible manner), the ACL may decide to resume control of the shadow account, at its discretion.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;7. Definitions&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1. &quot;ACL&quot; -- International Association for Computational Linguistics&lt;br&gt; 2. &quot;Chapter&quot; -- a regional chapter of the ACL (EACL, NAACL)&lt;br&gt; 3. &quot;SIG&quot; -- Special Interest Group of the ACL, formally accepted&lt;br&gt; 4. &quot;daughter organization&quot; -- ACL chapter or SIG&lt;br&gt; 5. &quot;Central account&quot; -- bank accounts, etc., held by ACL&lt;br&gt; 6. &quot;Shadow account&quot; -- real or virtual bank accounts managed by daughter&lt;br&gt; 7. &quot;Satellite shadow account&quot; -- bank accounts, etc., held by daughter for funds explicitly earmarked by provider for daughter usage only &lt;/p&gt; <br /> ==May 31, 2008==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The AFNLP representative to ACL will be invited to all ACL exec meetings but not included in the ACL exec mailing list. <br /> #(PASSED) Prof. Kam-Fai Wong's position as AFNLP representative to ACL is hereby approved, starting immediately and for the duration of his membership on the AFNLP board. <br /> <br /> ==April 14, 2008==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) Copyright Transfer Agreement<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Copyright to the above work (including, without limitation, the right to publish the work in whole or in part in any and all forms and media, now or hereafter known) is hereby transferred to the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), effective as of the date of this agreement, on the understanding that the work has been accepted for presentation at a meeting sponsored by the ACL and for publication in the proceedings of that meeting. However, each of the authors and the employers for whom the work was performed reserve all other rights, specifically including the following: (1) All proprietary rights other than copyright and publication rights transferred to ACL; (2) The right to publish in a journal or collection or to be used in future works of the author's own (such as articles or books) all or part of this work, provided that acknowledgment is given to the ACL and a full citation to its publication in the particular proceedings is included; (3) The right to make oral presentation of the material in any forum; (4) The right to make copies of the work for internal distribution within the author's organization and for external distribution as a preprint, reprint, technical report, or related class of document. &lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Exceptions: Some of the foregoing conditions will not apply if the work is not copyrighted or has a non-transferrable copyright, because it has been produced by government employees acting within the scope of their employment. In this case, exceptions can be made by ticking the appropriate box below:&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;[ ] The work has been produced by government employees acting within the scope of their employment and is not copyrighted &lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;[ ] The work has been produced by government employees acting within the scope of their employment and has non-transferrable copyright&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;[ ] The work has been produced by government employees acting within the scope of their employment and the government reserves the right to reproduce the work for government purposes&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;By typing my signature below, I confirm that all authors of the work have agreed to the above and that I am authorized to sign this form on their behalf.&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Signature (type your name):&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Your job title (if not one of the authors):&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Name and address of your organization:&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> ==April 9, 2008==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL exec appoints Mark Steedman as representative to AFNLP for the rest of his term on the exec.<br /> <br /> ==September 14, 2007==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The initial SIG organizer(s) may serve as the de facto officers for the first year, while a nomination/election process is being established; official elections must be held within the first year after approval of the SIG. <br /> <br /> ==June 24, 2007==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL exec approves the creation of a new SIG, SIGANN for Annotation. The officers of SIGANN are Nancy Ide and Adam Meyers. <br /> <br /> ==June 18, 2007==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) In order to clearly separate discussion from voting, the voting on ACL resolutions will be done via sending the vote via email to the ACL secretary. When the vote is over, the secretary will send a summary of the vote (including the names and votes) back to the executive committee and also record the status of the vote (minus the names) on the resolutions page.&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;In special circumstances, the exec can decide *in advance of the vote* to change this procedure for valid reasons. &lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 8, 2007==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) To accept Singapore's bid for the 2009 ACL/IJCNLP conference. <br /> #(PASSED) The surpluses or deficits (as the case may be) will be shared 50-50 between ACL and AFNLP. AFNLP chooses to share its share 50-50 with the local organizers. <br /> <br /> ==May 16, 2007==<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Three related proposals about ACL's 2008 conference:&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> # (PASSED) PROPOSAL 1 : long and short tracks. The 2008 conference maintains the NAACL HLT distinction between long and short papers, where short papers have a serious submission number, a serious reviewing, a Coling-level acceptance rate (about 40%), and a different profile (new ideas, smaller results, smaller experiments) with different submission and reviewing requirements (completed work not required) and a much later submission deadline. <br /> #(PASSED) PROPOSAL 2 : the structure of the PC. There are 4 PC co-chairs: 1 NLP for long papers, 1 NLP for short papers, 1 Speech (for both long and short), 1 IR (for both long and short). The senior PC will be different for long and short papers (though potentially with overlap). The short paper PC will also handle demos. The Speech and IR co-chairs should have at least some visibility in the general NLP field. <br /> #(PASSED) PROPOSAL 3 : name. The conference has a name that (a) includes &quot;HLT&quot; in its short name and (b) &quot;Human Language Technologies&quot; in its long name. For specificity, this proposal is: &quot;ACL-08:HLT&quot; and &quot;The 46th Annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies&quot;. <br /> <br /> ==May 2007==<br /> &lt;p&gt;Free registration for some conference officials&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The General Chair, all PC co-chairs, and all local chairs (up to three) get free registration (not including the banquet) to ACL conferences. The free registration does not include ACL membership (it is assumed that people in these positions would already be ACL members). <br /> <br /> ==July 2006==<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Internet access at conferences&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> # (PASSED) Some recent conferences have not provided quality internet access. It was either too slow or limited. It was proposed that future conferences should provide easy access to fast internet (either as part of registration or for a separate fee). It is important that internet access is not restricted to a small number of ports (e.g., port 80) but rather to allow all ports normally used by mainstream internet protocols, including ssh, vpn, and remote desktop access.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Obsolete_2020-06-21&diff=73659 2020-06-21T08:51:06Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: Blanked the page</p> <hr /> <div></div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Statement_on_Racial_Injustice&diff=73658 2020-06-21T08:50:51Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: HinrichSchuetze moved page Statement on Racial Injustice to Obsolete 2020-06-21: duplicates https://www.aclweb.org/portal/content/acl-statement-racial-injustice</p> <hr /> <div>#REDIRECT [[Obsolete 2020-06-21]]</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Obsolete_2020-06-21&diff=73657 2020-06-21T08:50:51Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: HinrichSchuetze moved page Statement on Racial Injustice to Obsolete 2020-06-21: duplicates https://www.aclweb.org/portal/content/acl-statement-racial-injustice</p> <hr /> <div>The following statement was passed by the ACL Executive Committee on June 17, 2020.<br /> <br /> The ACL stands with the Black community to affirm that Black lives matter and to condemn racial injustice in the USA and worldwide, including targeted racially motivated violence of any kind (physical, mental, emotional), and academic structures that prevent Black scientists from thriving in our community. In particular, in solidarity with the Black community in North America, the ACL mourns for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Regis Korchinski-Paquet, and thousands of Black people who have lost their lives to this violence.<br /> <br /> The ACL has significantly grown its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives. We are committed to improving this work to make our community diverse and accessible to everyone.<br /> <br /> As is our responsibility, the ACL will regularly seek feedback and update its members on these initiatives and our community progress.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Obsolete_2020-06-21&diff=73655 2020-06-20T15:19:40Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>The following statement was passed by the ACL Executive Committee on June 17, 2020.<br /> <br /> The ACL stands with the Black community to affirm that Black lives matter and to condemn racial injustice in the USA and worldwide, including targeted racially motivated violence of any kind (physical, mental, emotional), and academic structures that prevent Black scientists from thriving in our community. In particular, in solidarity with the Black community in North America, the ACL mourns for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Regis Korchinski-Paquet, and thousands of Black people who have lost their lives to this violence.<br /> <br /> The ACL has significantly grown its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives. We are committed to improving this work to make our community diverse and accessible to everyone.<br /> <br /> As is our responsibility, the ACL will regularly seek feedback and update its members on these initiatives and our community progress.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Obsolete_2020-06-21&diff=73654 2020-06-20T15:18:37Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>The ACL stands with the Black community to affirm that Black lives matter and to condemn racial injustice in the USA and worldwide, including targeted racially motivated violence of any kind (physical, mental, emotional), and academic structures that prevent Black scientists from thriving in our community. In particular, in solidarity with the Black community in North America, the ACL mourns for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Regis Korchinski-Paquet, and thousands of Black people who have lost their lives to this violence.<br /> <br /> The ACL has significantly grown its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives. We are committed to improving this work to make our community diverse and accessible to everyone.<br /> <br /> As is our responsibility, the ACL will regularly seek feedback and update its members on these initiatives and our community progress.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Resolutions&diff=73653 2020-06-20T15:18:09Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>=ACL Resolutions=<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;This is a partial list of ACL resolutions. Older resolutions will be added over time.&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> == June 17, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The Exec passed the resolution of making a [[Statement on Racial Injustice]]. <br /> <br /> == June 10, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The Exec accpets the proposal for ACL SIG on Spoken Language Translation. <br /> <br /> == June 8, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The Exec adopts the short-term proposals passed by the ACL Reviewing Committee in the meeting on 2020-04-08.<br /> <br /> [[Short-Term Reform Proposals for ACL Reviewing]]<br /> <br /> == March 24, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The Exec adopts the budget plan for D&amp;I at ACL2020.<br /> <br /> == March 5, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> ACL adopts the ACM Code of Ethics (https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics) in the version adopted June 22nd, 2018, by the ACM Council. In its application to ACL, it is to be read in the contextually appropriate interpretation, e.g., &quot;ACM member&quot; is to be read as &quot;ACL member&quot;. Sec 4.2 should be read as follows<br /> <br /> &quot;4.2 Treat violations of the Code as inconsistent with membership in the ACL. Each ACL member should encourage and support adherence by all members of the CL/NLP community regardless of ACL membership. ACL members who recognize a breach of the Code should consider reporting the violation to the ACL, which may result in remedial action.&quot;<br /> <br /> <br /> == March 4, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> Submissions to Computational Linguistics (CL) will continue to be reviewed single-blind. Authors of accepted CL research papers (including special issue research papers, but excluding survey papers, squibs, and book reviews) will be given the option to present at *ACL/EMNLP conferences. CL research papers accepted for publication starting from the March 2020 issue of CL will be eligible for conference presentation, beginning at the ACL 2020 conference in Seattle, WA, USA. <br /> <br /> == February 24, 2020 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) <br /> <br /> We approve modifications to the ACL Test-Of-Time Papers Award.<br /> (https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Test-of-Time_Papers_Award)<br /> <br /> == December 27, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept SIGTYP (SIG on Linguistic Typology) as a new SIG.<br /> <br /> == November 19, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept the proposal from the nominating committee concerning new fellows for 2019. <br /> <br /> == October 2, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept SIGEL (SIG on Endangered Languages) as a new SIG.<br /> <br /> == August 15, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL Exec extends the appointment of Graeme Hirst and Emily M. Bender as PCC co-chairs through 2022.<br /> <br /> == July 28, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> Submissions to CL will be divided to two categories:<br /> * Extended version of past conference paper(s): single-blind reviewing, no conference presentation<br /> * New material not previously published: double-blind reviewing, given oral or poster presentation at *ACL/EMNLP conferences<br /> <br /> == July 28, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> For EMNLP 2019, the maximum compensation for each tutorial is capped at $5000 US dollars. The formula for EMNLP 2019 tutorial payments otherwise remains unchanged, up to this per-tutorial maximum.<br /> <br /> == July 28, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> Tutorial compensation for *ACL conferences henceforth will be up to three free conference registrations for those presenting the tutorials.<br /> <br /> == June 1, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept EquiCL as an ACL Broad Interest Group.<br /> <br /> == May 23, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We pass the motion to establish the ACL test-of-time award<br /> <br /> '''Frequency''': once/year.<br /> <br /> '''Name of award and types of papers''':<br /> <br /> Name of award: Test-of-Time Paper on Computational Linguistics<br /> <br /> Candidate papers: All papers published in venues under the auspices of ACL (including both journal and conference papers)<br /> <br /> '''How many''': 2 per year, one for papers published exactly 10 year back, one for those published exactly 25 years back.<br /> <br /> '''Who nominates''': Award committee: this committee should decide criteria (to be nominated by exec for two years)<br /> <br /> '''Who judges''': Expert committee: all ACL conferences’ general chairs, program chairs and ACL presidents in the interval ([current year-5]- [current year]) who don’t have COIs with the nominated papers.<br /> <br /> '''At ACL''': a session with winning paper presentations will be held <br /> <br /> == May 7, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the following proposal concerning ACL members at-large:<br /> <br /> * According to the ACL Constitution, the ACL Executive Committee has three members at-large, elected for terms of three years by the members of the Association.<br /> * The ACL Exec recommends that the ACL Nominating Committee strive to nominate members-at-large from the three major geographic regions on an annual rotating basis.<br /> * The roles for the members-at-large will be assigned by the current ACL President on an as-needed basis, and may change throughout their terms. These roles will not require specialized knowledge beyond that of a well-informed, active member of the ACL community.<br /> * As set forth in the Process for Ad Hoc ACL Leadership Roles (https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Process_for_Ad_Hoc_ACL_Leadership_Roles), the ACL Exec will appoint additional positions that require specialized expertise.<br /> <br /> == April 19, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> We approve the 2019 ACL Distinguished Service Award (DSA) awardee [name withheld] selected by the Nominating Committee.<br /> <br /> == April 13, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> We accept the LTA Nominating Committee's recommendation to give the 2019 Lifetime Achievement Award to [name withheld]. <br /> <br /> == March 15, 2019 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We pass the resolution that Graeme Hirst and Emily Bender are the co-chairs of the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of 2019.<br /> <br /> == December 23, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We adopt the [[Process for Ad Hoc ACL Leadership Roles]].<br /> <br /> == December 12, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approved: (1) the ACL anti-harassment policy implementation procedure, in the version of 2018-08-08, be adopted except for the first line of the section on handling complaints (page 4), and (2) the ACL anti-harassment policy implementation procedure be amended such that complaints will be considered only if received within 365 days of the alleged incident, or if the alleged incident occurred between 2016-10-18 and 2018-11-30.<br /> <br /> == December 3, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept the proposal from the nominating committee concerning new fellows for 2018. <br /> <br /> == November 1, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We remove the policy on funding workshops not held at one of the *ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> == October 25, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approved the creation of ACL Special Interest Group on Representation Learning (SIGREP).<br /> <br /> == June 25, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We adopt a [[Distinguished Service Award]].<br /> <br /> == June 6, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept the following motion:<br /> <br /> * the exec requests that the nominating committee select candidates for the next member at large that are uniquely qualified to serve as information chair, independent of geographic region. <br /> * The exec further requests that the nominating committee interview potential nominees to assess their qualifications, and only nominate members that have the time, willingness, and the experience to lead a software team to procure new digital services as well as maintain exiting legacy software, and oversee the transition from legacy software to newer software solutions.<br /> <br /> == May 2, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the constitution and the initial slate of board members of Asia-Pacific Chapter of ACL (AACL)<br /> <br /> == March 14, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the candidates of CL editor. The candidates will be asked in order.<br /> <br /> == February 23, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the three candidates for a new TACL editor-in-chief, which will be approached by the search committee.<br /> <br /> == February 16, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the proposal for training for harassment complaint responders:<br /> <br /> (a) we accept Anne Grant's proposal; <br /> <br /> (b) Emily M. Bender and Graeme Hirst liaise with Anne Grant to develop the course; <br /> <br /> (c) we boot up a complaints committee forthwith so that as many of its members as possible can attend the training at ACL in Melbourne on the day before the tutorial day and Exec meeting.<br /> <br /> == February 7, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We adopt the following rules concerning conflicts of interest in the nominating committee when electing new fellows:<br /> <br /> 1. Members of the nominating committee are not allowed to contribute to new nominations (as nominators or recommenders) while serving on the committee.<br /> <br /> 2. Members who have earlier contributed to nominations that remain in the system should if possible ask other people to replace them (as nominator or recommender). If this is not possible, the concerned member should declare that they have a conflict of interest and not take part in the evaluation of that nomination (see point 3 below).<br /> <br /> 3. Members who have a conflict of interest with respect to a nomination should declare this and not take part in the evaluation of that nomination. Conflicts of interest are assumed to exist if committee members have contributed to the nomination (see point 2 above), if they have a close family relationship to the nominee, if they have co-authored a paper or collaborated with the nominee in the previous five years, if they are employed at the same company or institution as the nominee, or if they have other relations to the nominee that can be seen to constitute a conflict of interest.<br /> <br /> 4. If one or more conflicts of interest exist, the nominating committee shall first evaluate and rank the nominees for which no conflicts exist. The remaining nominees shall then each be evaluated and inserted into the ranking by the subset of the committee that does not have a conflict for that nominee.<br /> <br /> == January 24, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The Exec approve the following proposal concerning rules and procedures for electing Fellows: <br /> <br /> 1. Members of the Exec and the Nominating Committee are not be eligible to become Fellows while serving. People should be informed about this before being nominated to the Exec.<br /> <br /> 2. Nominators should be informed about the outcome of their nominations but without specific information about why a particular nominee was not elected.<br /> <br /> 3. Information about criteria and conditions for selection (including the 0.2% rule) should be provided in the instructions for nominators.<br /> <br /> == January 13, 2018 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approved the following two changes concerning ACL membership registration/renewal: (1) We open the registration for the next membership year on December 1, instead of January 1. (2) For all members who registered after December 1, 2017, their memberships can be rolled over to 2018.<br /> <br /> == December 30, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL Exec will publish the the diversity statistics of 2017.<br /> <br /> == December 21, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept the offer from MIT Press to give ACL members a discount.<br /> <br /> == December 2, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept the proposal from the nominating committee concerning new fellows for 2017. <br /> <br /> == November 29, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We accept the proposal from MIT Press to publish both CL and TACL (for an annual flat fee + expenses as specified in the proposal).<br /> <br /> == November 22, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approved the proposal for creating the Asia-Pacific Chapter of ACL.<br /> <br /> == October 30, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> Recommendations for submission, review and citation for *ACL conferences and TACL:<br /> <br /> We approved the amendment to the policy, by changing the first paragraph from:<br /> <br /> The following policies are adopted for *ACL conferences (ACL, NAACL, EACL) and the TACL journal in the interest of maintaining and protecting double-blind review without sacrificing the positive effects of preprint publishing.<br /> <br /> to:<br /> <br /> The following policies are adopted for *ACL conferences (ACL, NAACL, EACL) and the TACL journal in the interest of maintaining and protecting double-blind review without sacrificing the positive effects of preprint publishing. We recommend conferences and workshop that are co-located with *ACL conferences and use double-blind review to adopt the same policies unless this conflicts with other policies they have.<br /> <br /> == October 13, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> Recommendations for submission, review and citation for *ACL conferences and TACL:<br /> <br /> We accept the proposal for new policies and guidelines and charge the working group with making necessary changes to the document based on the comments from the exec.<br /> <br /> == September 25, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approved the extension of the deadline for fellows nominations by one month, to November 1, 2017.<br /> <br /> == September 7, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We adopt the amendment of the resolution on the search committee for the TACL editors by replacing <br /> <br /> 2. The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering committee + the current editors-in-chief + Graeme Hirst + Yejin Choi + Joakim Nivre (all three representatives of the ACL exec).<br /> <br /> with<br /> <br /> 2. The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering committee + the current editors-in-chief + the CL editor + Graeme Hirst + Yejin Choi + Joakim Nivre (all three representatives of the ACL exec).<br /> <br /> The resolution after the amendment is as follows:<br /> <br /> 1. An ad hoc search committee shall be formed to appoint to new editors in chief for TACL, to replace the resigning editors.<br /> <br /> 2. The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering committee + the current editors-in-chief + the CL editor + Graeme Hirst + Yejin Choi + Joakim Nivre (all three representatives of the ACL exec).<br /> <br /> 3. The search committee shall be chaired by Ido Dagan.<br /> <br /> 4. The search committee shall discuss names and come up with a ranked list of acceptable suggestions to the ACL exec.<br /> <br /> 5. The exec shall then vote on the ranked list.<br /> <br /> 6. The chair of the search committee shall contact the people on the ranked list, in order, until two have accepted. Should less than two invitees accept, the search process will restart with step 4.<br /> <br /> == August 31, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We adopt the following plan for finding a new editor for CL with Lori Levin as the chair of the search committee:<br /> <br /> 1. Form a search committee: The search committee should consist of people who are knowledgeable about a broad range of areas in computational linguistics and human language technologies and are committed to the genre of long, comprehensive journal articles as valuable documents in a research community.<br /> <br /> 1a. All past CL editors are invited to be on the search committee.<br /> <br /> 1b. TACL editors are invited to join the search committee.<br /> <br /> 1c. Members of the ACL exec are invited to join the search committee. <br /> <br /> 1d. If not enough members of the ACL exec are available to join the search committee, or if not enough people with experience from the CL editorial board have joined, we will extend the invitation to NAACL and EACL boards.<br /> <br /> 1e. If the committee does not meet our new diversity requirements, the CL editor will be asked to propose additional people with experience from the CL editorial board who can be invited to balance the representation.<br /> <br /> 2. Formulate a job description: The CL editor will be asked to provide a first draft, which the search committee can review and possibly modify.<br /> <br /> 3. Send the job description to the ACL mailing list and ask for nominations/volunteers with a deadline one month after the call (but preferably not later than November 1).<br /> <br /> 4. Identify additional candidates and ask all candidates to submit a vision statement.<br /> <br /> 5. Rank all candidates by email vote.<br /> <br /> 6. Contact candidates starting from the top ranked candidate.<br /> <br /> == August 21, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> 1. An ad hoc search committee shall be formed to appoint new editors in chief for TACL, to replace the resigning editors.<br /> <br /> 2. The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering committee + the current editors-in-chief + Graeme Hirst + Yejin Choi + Joakim Nivre (all three representatives of the ACL exec).<br /> <br /> 3. The search committee shall be chaired by Ido Dagan.<br /> <br /> 4. The search committee shall discuss names and come up with a ranked list of acceptable suggestions to the ACL exec.<br /> <br /> 5. The exec shall then vote on the ranked list.<br /> <br /> 6. The chair of the search committee shall contact the people on the ranked list, in order, until two have accepted. Should less than two invitees accept, the search process will restart with step 4.<br /> <br /> == August 18, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We appointed a working group to work out revised policies and guidelines for handling preprint papers in the review process for *ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> The working group is composed of twelve people:<br /> <br /> Jennifer Foster (ACL Exec)<br /> <br /> Marti Hearst (ACL Exec)<br /> <br /> Ming Zhou (ACL Exec)<br /> <br /> Joakim Nivre (ACL Exec)<br /> <br /> Paola Merlo (ACL Exec, CL editor)<br /> <br /> Lillian Lee (TACL editor)<br /> <br /> Iryna Guryvech (ACL2018 program co-chair)<br /> <br /> Yusuke Miyao (ACL2018 program co-chair)<br /> <br /> Amanda Stent (NAACL2018 program co-chair)<br /> <br /> Heng Ji (NAACL2018 program co-chair)<br /> <br /> Chris Manning<br /> <br /> Jason Eisner<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The working group shall submit a proposal for policies and guidelines that can be adopted for the 2018 conferences no later than October 1, 2017. The proposal shall specify under what conditions preprint papers (and other papers that have already been published in some form) can be submitted to *ACL conferences. It shall also provide guidelines for the citation of such papers and for the review of the papers themselves as well as papers that cite or fail to cite them.<br /> <br /> 2. The working group may in addition propose actions to be implemented as part of a long-term strategy to evolve our publishing and reviewing models over time.<br /> <br /> 3. The working group shall be chaired by Joakim Nivre.<br /> <br /> == August 13, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL Exec approves the extention of Lillian Lee's term as the co-editor-in-chief of TACL to the end of 2019.<br /> <br /> == April 17, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the guideline on remote conference participation: [[ACL Guidelines on Remote Conference Participation]].<br /> <br /> == April 9, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> (1) We approve revising the SIG creation guidelines, changing &quot;hold elections for these positions every two years&quot; to &quot;hold elections for these positions at least every three years&quot;. <br /> <br /> (2) We approve the creation of the special interest group on NLP and Education (SIG EDU).<br /> <br /> == April 1, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL Exec adopts the ACL policy on political statements and actions (https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Policy_on_Political_Statements_and_Actions)<br /> <br /> == March 15, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL Exec adopts the new rules and criteria for ACL fellows.<br /> <br /> == February 4, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL Exec approves the statement about the immigration ban.<br /> <br /> == January 25, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve the [[procedure for composing the new Nominating Committee]]<br /> <br /> == January 8, 2017 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL shall create an Ad Hoc Committee on Anti-Harassment Procedures for the 2017-18 period, <br /> including representatives of the ACL Exec as well as each chapter board, with a remit as follows:<br /> <br /> Ad Hoc Committee on Anti-Harassment Procedures<br /> <br /> The charge of the committee is to research and document best practices for handling complaints<br /> under the new anti-harassment policy and to make concrete recommendations to the ACL Executive<br /> on what procedures should be followed. The ACL Exec requests that a preliminary report<br /> be made to by June 30, 2017 in order to support discussion at the 2017 ACL Exec meeting with<br /> a final report by June 30, 2018.<br /> <br /> == November 24, 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL exec accepts the recommendations of the 2016 Fellows Selection Committee.<br /> <br /> == November 24, 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> ACL adopts the [[ACL Conflict-of-interest policy]], [[Whistleblower Policy]] and [[ACL Document Retention and Destruction Policy]].<br /> <br /> == October 18, 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> The ACL exec approves the Anti-Harassment Policy: [[Anti-Harassment Policy]].<br /> <br /> == September 14, 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> We approve that the ACL Executive Committee proposes to the Membership that the ACL Constitution is amended by replacing the current Article V, Item 5, reading as follows:<br /> <br /> There shall be a Nominating Committee consisting of the three most recent Past Presidents, each serving for the three years following their own Presidency. The member whose term is about to expire shall chair the Committee. In case of a vacancy the Executive shall appoint a member to serve for the appropriate period.<br /> <br /> with the following text:<br /> <br /> There shall be a Nominating Committee consisting of the three most recent Past Presidents, each serving for the three years following their own Presidency, and six ACL Fellows selected subject to diversity requirements set forth by the Executive. The Past President whose term is about to expire shall chair the Nominating Committee for a period of one year. In case of a vacancy on the committee, the Executive shall appoint a member to serve for the remainder of the term of the vacating committee member.<br /> <br /> == September 12, 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) <br /> <br /> In order to better disseminate the outcomes of ACL Executive meetings to the ACL Membership and ACL Exec Members, for future meetings, the ACL Exec will make available public minutes of its meetings. These minutes may exclude portions covering discussion of matters that are deemed sensitive, personal or confidential. For ACL Exec members, the Secretary shall make known to new members of the Exec how they can access the archive of minutes of ACL Exec meetings. In addition, resolutions and agreed decisions (of policy or practice, even though they do not have the formal status of a resolution) made at ACL Exec meetings will be extracted and placed on public web pages. This extraction of resolutions and decisions (only) will be applied retrospectively, beginning with the ACL Exec meetings of 2011.<br /> <br /> == September 8, 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL exec approved adding Stuart Shieber as a member of the TACL Steering Committee.<br /> <br /> == August 23 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL exec decides (i) that talks at the ACL, NAACL, EACL and EMNLP conferences shall be video-recorded, (ii) that the recordings shall be given persistent storage and made available through links in the ACL anthology, and (iii) that the cost for making and storing the recordings shall be covered by the ACL as an organization outside the specific conference budgets.<br /> <br /> == August 19 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) We accept the criteria for selecting the General Chair and Program Co-Chair:<br /> <br /> [[Selecting a General Chair]]<br /> <br /> [[Selecting a Program Co-Chair]]<br /> <br /> == August 7 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) ACL no longer gives best student paper award.<br /> <br /> == August 7 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The exec accepts the report of the ad hoc committee on actions for equity and diversity and agrees with all seven recommendations in principle. The exec directs the ad hoc committee to proceed with an implementation plan for the recommendations to be presented to the exec for discussion and approval.<br /> <br /> == May 29 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) We accept the LTA Nominating Committee's recommendation to give the 2016 Lifetime Achievement Award to [name withheld].<br /> <br /> == May 8 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # The ACL exec approves the policy on COI handling: http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conflict-of-interest_policy.<br /> <br /> == March 21 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> #The ACL exec approves the policy that TACL editors-in-chief are allowed to be appointed for a third term of up to three years.<br /> #Lillian Lee is appointed to a second term of 1 year and 9 months (January 2017 to September 2018)<br /> <br /> == March 17 2016 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> #The ACL exec approves the policy that all ACL conferences and sub-events must use START.<br /> #We will make a deal with Softconf that covers all ACL events for a single annual payment.<br /> <br /> == November 25 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # We approve the creation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Nominating Committees and ACL Fellows<br /> <br /> The charge of the committee is to re-examine ACL policies and practices on the make-up of and procedures of nominating<br /> committees and the ACL Fellows program, and to make concrete recommendations to the ACL Executive on whether and how<br /> the current policies and practices should be changed. The remit encompasses the lifetime achievement awards election<br /> committee, the ACL Executive Nominating Committee, the ACL Fellows selection committee, and the ACL Fellows program. A<br /> primary concern is to consider whether there are appropriate ways of improving the actual or perceived openness,<br /> inclusiveness, diversity, and impartiality of these programs. The committee may also want to consider roles and<br /> responsibilities for ACL Fellows. The ACL Exec requests that the committee make a final report by June 30, 2016, so that<br /> any changes can be considered at the 2016 ACL Exec meeting, and put in place for the following year.<br /> == August 17 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # We approve the creation of SIGUR, a Special Interest Group on Uralic Languages.<br /> <br /> == June 26, 2015 ==<br /> <br /> 1. An ad hoc search committee shall be formed to appoint a new editor in chief for TACL, to join the current editor(s)-in-chief.<br /> <br /> 2. The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering cmte + the current editor(s)-in-chief<br /> + Graeme Hirst + Gertjan van Noord + Chris Manning (all three as representatives of the current ACL exec).<br /> <br /> 3. The search committee shall be chaired by Ido Dagan.<br /> <br /> 4. The search committee shall discuss names and come up with a ranked list of acceptable suggestions to the ACL exec.<br /> <br /> 5. The exec shall then vote on the ranked list.<br /> <br /> 6. The chair of the search committee shall contact the people on the ranked list, in order, until one accepts.<br /> Should all invitees decline, the search process will restart with step 4.<br /> <br /> == May 20, 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # Until 2020, Transactions of the ACL shall have three co-editors in chief in order to complete the work needed to bring TACL out of start-up mode into a fully established state.<br /> <br /> == May 3, 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> # We approve the CL publication agreement change proposed by Oracle for an article authored by Oracle employees. In summary, this replaces the second sentence of the agreement:<br /> <br /> By your signature below you hereby grant to the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), effective as of the date of this agreement, all your right, title, and interest including copyright in and to the Article.<br /> <br /> by: <br /> <br /> By your signature below you hereby grant to the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), effective as of the date of this agreement, a five-year exclusive license in and to the Article according to the terms of this Agreement.<br /> <br /> Later parts of the agreement already give ACL non-exclusive rights to publish the article without time limit. The full red-lined agreement is attached.<br /> <br /> I propose this on the understanding that we will move expeditiously towards providing a similar (but likely not identically worded) arrangement, not involving copyright transfer, for all authors, following further discussion by the Executive.<br /> <br /> == March 3, 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # ACL will split the surplus or loss on ACL 2015 with AFNLP<br /> <br /> == February 10, 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # Pushpak Bhattacharyya is hereby appointed as the representative of the ACL executive committee to AFNLP (Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing) for the duration of his term on the ACL executive committee.<br /> <br /> == January 2015 ==<br /> <br /> 1. An ad hoc search committee shall be formed to find a replacement for Michael Collins as TACL co-editor-in-chief.<br /> <br /> 2. The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering cmte + Lillian Lee (TACL co-editor-in-chief) + Graeme Hirst + Gertan van Noord + Haifeng Wang (all three as representatives of the current ACL exec).<br /> <br /> 3. The search committee shall be chaired by Ido Dagan.<br /> <br /> 4. The search committee shall discuss names and come up with a ranked list of acceptable suggestions to the ACL exec.<br /> <br /> 5. The exec shall then vote on the ranked list.<br /> <br /> 6. The chair of the search committee shall contact the people on the ranked list, in order, until one accepts. Should all invitees decline, the search process will restart with step 4.<br /> <br /> == January 15, 2015 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # The Executive Board of the Association for Computational Linguistics expresses its gratitude to Chiaki Nemoto for her work as bookkeeper for the Association for the last five years. Chiaki has been instrumental in bringing order to the Association's bookkeeping and financial records, and we are deeply appreciative of her work.<br /> <br /> == November 26, 2014 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> # The ACL exec approves the creation of the SIGSLAV Special Interest Group on Slavic Natural Language Processing<br /> <br /> == August 15, 2014 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) <br /> # The ACL exec appoints Hwee Tou Ng from the National University of Singapore as book review editor for Computational Linguistics. The position has a term of five years.<br /> <br /> == June 1, 2014 ==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) <br /> # The Executive Board of the Association for Computational Linguistics,<br /> Inc., a not-for-profit organization registered in New Jersey as<br /> charity number CH-0820600, hereby confirms that it has authorized the<br /> Treasurer of its European Chapter to operate and be responsible for<br /> all its euro-denominated bank and investment accounts in Europe. The<br /> Board further confirms that the present Treasurer of its European<br /> Chapter is Dr Michael Rosner of the University of Malta.<br /> <br /> == January 10, 2014==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) <br /> # An ad hoc search committee shall be formed to find a replacement for Dekang Lin as TACL co-editor-in-chief.<br /> # The search committee shall consist of the 6 members of the existing TACL steering cmte + Michael Collins (TACL co-editor-in-chief) + Graeme Hirst + Gertan van Noord + Haifeng Wang (all three as representatives of the current ACL exec).<br /> # The search committee shall be chaired by Ido Dagan.<br /> # The search committee shall discuss names and come up with a ranked list of acceptable suggestions to the ACL exec.<br /> # The exec shall then vote on the ranked list.<br /> # The chair of the search committee shall contact the people on the ranked list, in order, until one accepts. Should all invitees decline, the search process will restart with step 4.<br /> <br /> ==July 16, 2013==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The exec engages Mr Tom Dartnell of Nisivoccia LLP as our new accountant as per his letter of engagement and we accept his recommendation that he start with an audit.<br /> <br /> ==June 10, 2013==<br /> <br /> (FAILED) The program chairs of the ACL 2013 conference will be authorized to participate in the JAIR award track in 2013<br /> [http://www.jair.org/awardedpapers.html http://www.jair.org/awardedpapers.html]<br /> <br /> ==May 7, 2013==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL exec approves the ACL Policy for DOI assignment and the ACL Information Office budget in separate resolutions<br /> <br /> # ACL policy for digital object identifier (DOI) assignment:<br /> ## Allow the ACL Information Officer to revoke the current ACM­/ACL agreement regarding DOIs he/she sees fit within the next twelve (12) months;<br /> ## Allow the ACL Information Officer to pursue registering the ACL to become a DOI granting authority;<br /> ## Allow the ACL Information Officer to register DOIs on the behalf of the Transactions of Computational Linguistics journal (TACL).<br /> # ACL Information Office budget (Note: supersedes / revokes previous resolution (Aug 2, 2011):<br /> ## Approve a budget of 10,000 USD for the ACL Information Office to use during the 2013-2014 year (Apr 2013 -- Mar 2014), where surpluses from the budget can be rolled over to subsequent years;<br /> ## Approve that the ACL Webmaster part-time position be given a salary of up to 30 USD / hour.<br /> <br /> ==Oct 16, 2012==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The editors of any ACL journal may submit to that journal, but in such<br /> cases the submitted paper will be handled by a third party. The same<br /> procedure will be followed for any papers submitted by those who work<br /> in the editor's laboratory, or who are otherwise closely associated<br /> with the editor in such a way that a conflict of interest might arise<br /> or be perceived.<br /> <br /> For the purposes of this proposal, the third party handling the<br /> submitted paper will generally be one of the other editors. In the<br /> case of Computational Linguistics, the panel of editors consists of<br /> the editor-in-chief, the squibs editor and the book review editor; in<br /> the case of TACL, the panel of editors consists of the two<br /> editors-in-chief. In any circumstances agreed as exceptional by the<br /> relevant panel of editors, some other party may be asked to handle the<br /> submitted paper; the guiding principle is that there should be no<br /> perceived conflict of interest.<br /> <br /> ==Aug 20, 2012==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) A person can register for ACL and CIPS simultaneously and receive a<br /> 20% discount on the membership fee from each organization.<br /> <br /> ==June 15, 2012==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL exec approves the creation of a new SIG on Language<br /> Technologies for the Socio-Economic Sciences and the Humanities<br /> (SIGHUM).<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Mar 18, 2012==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) We accept the LTA Nominating Committee's recommendation to give the<br /> 2012 Lifetime Achievement Award to [name withheld].<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL executive committee approves the request from the editors of<br /> ACL TACL that reviewing of paper submissions to TACL should be double<br /> blind. More specifically, reviewers will not know the identities of<br /> the authors. Action editors and the journal editors will have access<br /> to the author identities.<br /> <br /> ==Dec 23, 2011==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL exec approves the creation of Sections as internal structures<br /> of SIGLEX, each having an elected representative as an additional<br /> officer, with the corresponding change of their constitution. The<br /> first Section will be on Multiword Expressions. New Sections can be<br /> introduced when necessary.<br /> <br /> ==Nov 23, 2011==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL exec approves the creation of the SIGSLP special interest<br /> group on speech and language processing for assistive technologies.<br /> <br /> ==Aug 2, 2011==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)Motion regarding Ongoing Maintenance of the ACL Portal Website<br /> <br /> Background:<br /> Currently we do not have any programming support allocated to the Portal. We<br /> either have to abandon the Portal by default (eventually it will need some<br /> maintenance) or develop it further, if only minimally. <br /> <br /> Proposal:<br /> <br /> 1. We email the membership to see if we can find someone who has a<br /> student who knows Drupal (the content management system used by the website)<br /> and is able to work on a casual basis paid for between 4 and 8 hours per<br /> week. An appropriate rate of payment would be $30 per hour. The total<br /> cost of this would be between $6000 and $12000 per year.<br /> <br /> 2. We establish an ad hoc 'information services committee' consisting<br /> of three people who take responsibility for determining and directing the<br /> activities of the portal maintainer. <br /> <br /> ==Jun 28, 2011==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) A summer school on NLP &amp; IR is being held in cooperation with SIGIR <br /> just before SIGIR-2011 (see reference to http://nlp.blcu.edu.cn/others/nlpir-ss/ in http://www.sigir.org/events/events-upcoming.html).<br /> <br /> We hereby approve 1 and 2.<br /> <br /> (1) The summer school will be held in cooperation with the ACL<br /> <br /> (2) The ACL will sponsor the summer school for $1000<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Jun 3, 2011==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) The ACL executive committee appoints Haifeng Wang as its liaison to<br /> AFNLP for the remainder of his term on the ACL executive committee.<br /> <br /> ==Dec 17, 2010==<br /> <br /> (PASSED) New eligibility criteria for reduced membership fees to start in 2011:<br /> <br /> Regular rates: U.S., Canada, E.U. (except Romania and Bulgaria), Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, European microstates, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, U.A.E.<br /> <br /> Reduced rates: All other countries. <br /> <br /> ==Dec 15, 2010==<br /> <br /> (PASSED)<br /> <br /> 1 Background<br /> <br /> Historically our journal production costs have consisted of two elements:<br /> the part-time editorial assistance hired by the editor, and the production<br /> work executed and managed by MIT Press. The part-time editorial assistance<br /> costs around A$15k per annum; this pays for one day a week of Suzy Howlett,<br /> our editorial assistant. The MIT Press costs, which cover copyediting,<br /> proofreading, typesetting, web hosting plus ancillary things like marketing<br /> and the handling of rights permissions have typically been on the order of<br /> US$45-50k per annum. <br /> <br /> 2 The New Model<br /> <br /> We have worked out a new cost structure for the MIT Press production costs.<br /> There are a number of details here, but the major substantive elements are<br /> that (a) we are reducing some of the production costs by using a LaTeX-aware<br /> copy editor; and (b) MIT Press has agreed to substantially reduce its<br /> management overhead. Consequently, the new target per annum MIT Press cost<br /> is about US$28k, representing a saving of at least US$17k per annum. This<br /> figure assumes the journal stays the size that it currently is (640 pages<br /> per annum), so the number will go up if we publish more; but the per-page<br /> production costs are now vastly improved (note that the total costs include<br /> a relatively fixed-cost management element and a variable production cost<br /> based on # of pages).<br /> <br /> 3 The Proposed Package<br /> <br /> My proposal consists of two elements. <br /> <br /> [1] We sign up to the new MITP model for a five year period; and <br /> [2] we invest some of the savings -- I would suggest somewhere around US$5k<br /> per annum for the period-- in further developing our instance of the Open<br /> Journal System web-based manuscript management machinery. <br /> <br /> The aim of this second element is to further streamline our processes with<br /> two aims in mind: (a) to enable us to handle larger volumes (and in<br /> particular to cater for some possible outcomes of the ongoing<br /> conference--&gt;journal discussions), and (b) to build infrastructure that will<br /> make it easier for us to at some point go completely independent of third<br /> party publishers, should we choose to do that.<br /> <br /> 4 Risks and Benefits<br /> <br /> I considered trying to replace MITP with our own resources; my estimate is<br /> that this would require us, amongst other things, to hire a one-day-per-week<br /> production manager. MIT Press has got very close to matching the costs of<br /> that by reducing their management overhead. For us this is less risky,<br /> since it's quite hard for us to find people to do this kind of work, but<br /> under the proposal model, that's MIT Press's problem. Similarly, I explored<br /> hiring our own LaTeX-aware copy editors; I found an excellent candidate (who<br /> it now looks like MIT Press will use for CL) and had him to do some test<br /> editing; he's very good. But accessing this resource through MIT Press<br /> again has the benefit that if he goes sick or otherwise becomes unavailable,<br /> it's MIT Press's job to find a replacement.<br /> <br /> ==Nov 5, 2010==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL executive committee approves a new procedure for the sponsorship committee as set forth in the following document.<br /> [http://www.aclweb.org/downloads/ACLSponsorshipCommitteeProcedures.doc Word Doc]<br /> [http://www.aclweb.org/downloads/ACLSponsorshipCommitteeProcedures.pdf PDF]<br /> <br /> ==Apr 14, 2010==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) Following the election of a Vice President Elect for 2010 from outside the Asia-Pacific region, which was the target region for last year's nominations by the nominating committee, the ACL Exec guides the nominating committee to nominate again candidates from that region. As implied by the ACL constitution, nominations from the floor will not be limited to any region. <br /> <br /> ==Mar 22, 2010==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL executive committee allocates $3600 to Min Yen Kan for work on curating the ACL Anthology. <br /> <br /> ==Mar 11, 2010==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL Exec would like to explore in depth the initiative for establishing a journal venue for conference publications, following the guidelines and open issues discussed at its teleconfernce on February 22, 2010. To that end, a committee is formed which will prepare a detailed proposal that can be brought up for vote by the exec. The target deadline for the committee to present the detailed proposal and recommendations to the Exec is April 15, 2010. The committee will consist of the following members:&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ido Dagan and Hwee Tou - co-chairs&lt;br&gt; Robert Dale - as CL editor&lt;br&gt; Graeme Hirst - as Treasurer&lt;br&gt; Dragomir Radev - as Secreatary&lt;br&gt; Paola Merlo and Ken Church<br /> <br /> ==Jan 27, 2010==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) That Ben Phelan be paid the sum of A$15000 for the development of the ACL Member Portal, with this payment being made in two stages; one payment of AUD10000 by end January 2010, and the remaining A$5000 paid on June 30, 2010, this being the end of the six month period during which any bugs and problems identified in the portal are to be attended to. <br /> <br /> ==November 13, 2009==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) ACL Endorsement of Scientific Meetings &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The ACL is pleased to endorse scientific meetings organized by other bodies, so long as the following criteria are met:&lt;br&gt; <br /> ##It is an open scientific conference related to computational linguistics<br /> ##Acceptance of submissions is based on genuine peer review<br /> ##The conference appears to be competently organized<br /> ##ACL membership materials are distributed at the conference<br /> ##Understanding that there is no implication that ACL will host proceedings in the ACL Anthology<br /> <br /> In order to receive ACL endorsement, please contact the ACL Secretary at [mailto:secretary@aclweb.org secretary@aclweb.org]. Please indicate how the conference meets the ACL's criteria.<br /> <br /> ==October 21, 2009==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL exec extends the contract for the Computational Linguistics journal with MIT press by one more year, to include the 2010 calendar year. <br /> <br /> ==July 7, 2009==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL exec approves the creation of the SIGFSM special interest group on finite-state methods.&lt;br&gt;Ido Dagan <br /> <br /> ==March 11, 2009==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL exec approved the creation of the SIGMT special interest group on machine translation.&lt;br&gt; Ido Dagan <br /> <br /> ==September 3, 2008==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) A Proposal for an ACL Member Portal&lt;br&gt; Robert Dale 6th August 2008 &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt; This document proposes that we put in place an ACL Member Portal on the web by 1st January 2009. <br /> <br /> ==August 2008==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL exec approved the creation of the SIGBIOMED special interest group on biomedical NLP.&lt;br&gt;Steven Bird <br /> <br /> ==June 10, 2008==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) Shadow Account Practices&lt;br&gt; Eduard Hovy, Donia Scott, Kathy McCoy, Mike Rosner, Diane Litman (reconstructed by Kathy McCoy 2/3/04) &lt;p&gt;Goal&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;To set up limited financial independence for ACL's daughter organizations (ACL chapters and SIGs).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1. Basic Structure: Shadow Accounts&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1.1 All funds brought in by any ACL activity (conference, chapter conference, workshop, SIG workshop, grant, donation, membership, journal fees, etc.) ultimately belong to the ACL, unless explicitly specified to the contrary.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1.2 To give chapters and SIGs a certain amount of operational flexibility, and to facilitate affiliation of the ACL with other organizations, so-called Shadow Accounts will be set up. These accounts will record the amount of funds `belonging' to the daughter organizations.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1.3 The funds in a shadow account might be held either in a bank account separate from the principal ACL account, or they might simply be an amount earmarked as `belonging' to the daughter organization, or a mixture of the two. That is, the shadow account is a (possibly) virtual sub-account of the accounts of the international ACL.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1.4 A shadow account must be dissolved and its funds returned to the ACL either upon request of the ACL Executive, or when the daughter organization is dissolved.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2. Signature Authority and Usage&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2.1 The shadow accounts will be managed by the ACL Treasurer, unless he or she allocates (partial or full) management to the daughter organization.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2.2 If management of a shadow account is allocated to the daughter organization, both the ACL Treasurer and the Treasurer of the organization will have signature authority over the shadow account.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2.3 Funds in shadow accounts can be spent by the daughter organizations without requiring formal approval from the central ACL Executive or its Treasurer, as long as this usage is consistent with the policies of the ACL. Usage of the funds in unusual ways requires approval from the ACL Executive.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2.4 To ensure consistency with ACL policies, the ACL Secretary will maintain a list of approved purposes for which shadow account funds can be used.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3. Satellite Shadow Accounts&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3.1 All funds brought into a shadow account under conditions that explicitly forbid the funds to belong to the International ACL as a whole (for example, grants made by national institutions for local usage), will reside in satellite shadow accounts.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3.2 Such satellite shadow accounts will also include any monies brought in for activities that are independent of the International ACL (e.g., a grant to set up a website of training in CL within the chapter area) or monies tied to other specific projects (e.g., a grant specifically for students within the chapter area to attend ACL conferences).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3.3 Satellite accounts will be managed by the Treasurer of the daughter organization.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;4. Reporting&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3.1 Every year at the annual business meeting of the ACL (and also at the ACL Executive meeting that precedes it during the ACL conference), the daughter organization must provide full accounting of its financial activities during the past year, including the activity of satellite shadow accounts.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;4.2 The daughter organization must provide full accounting of its financial activities to its own members at least once a year.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;5. Maintaining a Minimum&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;5.1 At the beginning of every financial year, the ACL Treasurer will ensure that each shadow account contains a specified minimum, by transferring from the ACL central account the requisite amount. This minimum will not take into account the contents of satellite shadow accounts.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;5.2 At the time of writing, the minimum for chapters is US$5000 and for SIGs is US$0.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;6. Income and Loss&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;6.1 Unless explicitly designated otherwise by the giver, income derived from the activities of a daughter organization will be added to its shadow account. In the case of joint ACL-chapter conferences, the income will be split. A portion of the income will go to the shadow account and the remainder will belong to the ACL and be held in its central account.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;6.2 At present, the above mentioned split will be 50-50 for chapters.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;6.3 In a similar way, unless explicitly designated otherwise, any loss resulting from the activities of a daughter organization will be borne against the shadow account if the daughter. In the case of a joint ACL-chapter conference, any will be borne according to the same split proportion as the income. Any loss beyond the amount in a shadow account will be taken over by the central ACL. In such a situation, the central ACL will continue to ensure that the involved shadow account contains the agreed-upon minimum at the beginning of each financial year. However, it is expected that the portion of loss incurred by ACL will be paid back to ACL by the chapter, on the basis of the surplus from subsequent chapter activities.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;6.4 Should the ACL Exec deem that the shadow account is consistently in a loss situation (e.g., because of the chapter acting in a fiscally irresponsible manner), the ACL may decide to resume control of the shadow account, at its discretion.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;7. Definitions&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1. &quot;ACL&quot; -- International Association for Computational Linguistics&lt;br&gt; 2. &quot;Chapter&quot; -- a regional chapter of the ACL (EACL, NAACL)&lt;br&gt; 3. &quot;SIG&quot; -- Special Interest Group of the ACL, formally accepted&lt;br&gt; 4. &quot;daughter organization&quot; -- ACL chapter or SIG&lt;br&gt; 5. &quot;Central account&quot; -- bank accounts, etc., held by ACL&lt;br&gt; 6. &quot;Shadow account&quot; -- real or virtual bank accounts managed by daughter&lt;br&gt; 7. &quot;Satellite shadow account&quot; -- bank accounts, etc., held by daughter for funds explicitly earmarked by provider for daughter usage only &lt;/p&gt; <br /> ==May 31, 2008==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The AFNLP representative to ACL will be invited to all ACL exec meetings but not included in the ACL exec mailing list. <br /> #(PASSED) Prof. Kam-Fai Wong's position as AFNLP representative to ACL is hereby approved, starting immediately and for the duration of his membership on the AFNLP board. <br /> <br /> ==April 14, 2008==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) Copyright Transfer Agreement<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Copyright to the above work (including, without limitation, the right to publish the work in whole or in part in any and all forms and media, now or hereafter known) is hereby transferred to the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), effective as of the date of this agreement, on the understanding that the work has been accepted for presentation at a meeting sponsored by the ACL and for publication in the proceedings of that meeting. However, each of the authors and the employers for whom the work was performed reserve all other rights, specifically including the following: (1) All proprietary rights other than copyright and publication rights transferred to ACL; (2) The right to publish in a journal or collection or to be used in future works of the author's own (such as articles or books) all or part of this work, provided that acknowledgment is given to the ACL and a full citation to its publication in the particular proceedings is included; (3) The right to make oral presentation of the material in any forum; (4) The right to make copies of the work for internal distribution within the author's organization and for external distribution as a preprint, reprint, technical report, or related class of document. &lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Exceptions: Some of the foregoing conditions will not apply if the work is not copyrighted or has a non-transferrable copyright, because it has been produced by government employees acting within the scope of their employment. In this case, exceptions can be made by ticking the appropriate box below:&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;[ ] The work has been produced by government employees acting within the scope of their employment and is not copyrighted &lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;[ ] The work has been produced by government employees acting within the scope of their employment and has non-transferrable copyright&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;[ ] The work has been produced by government employees acting within the scope of their employment and the government reserves the right to reproduce the work for government purposes&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;By typing my signature below, I confirm that all authors of the work have agreed to the above and that I am authorized to sign this form on their behalf.&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Signature (type your name):&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Your job title (if not one of the authors):&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Name and address of your organization:&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> ==April 9, 2008==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL exec appoints Mark Steedman as representative to AFNLP for the rest of his term on the exec.<br /> <br /> ==September 14, 2007==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The initial SIG organizer(s) may serve as the de facto officers for the first year, while a nomination/election process is being established; official elections must be held within the first year after approval of the SIG. <br /> <br /> ==June 24, 2007==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The ACL exec approves the creation of a new SIG, SIGANN for Annotation. The officers of SIGANN are Nancy Ide and Adam Meyers. <br /> <br /> ==June 18, 2007==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) In order to clearly separate discussion from voting, the voting on ACL resolutions will be done via sending the vote via email to the ACL secretary. When the vote is over, the secretary will send a summary of the vote (including the names and votes) back to the executive committee and also record the status of the vote (minus the names) on the resolutions page.&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;In special circumstances, the exec can decide *in advance of the vote* to change this procedure for valid reasons. &lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> ==June 8, 2007==<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) To accept Singapore's bid for the 2009 ACL/IJCNLP conference. <br /> #(PASSED) The surpluses or deficits (as the case may be) will be shared 50-50 between ACL and AFNLP. AFNLP chooses to share its share 50-50 with the local organizers. <br /> <br /> ==May 16, 2007==<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Three related proposals about ACL's 2008 conference:&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> # (PASSED) PROPOSAL 1 : long and short tracks. The 2008 conference maintains the NAACL HLT distinction between long and short papers, where short papers have a serious submission number, a serious reviewing, a Coling-level acceptance rate (about 40%), and a different profile (new ideas, smaller results, smaller experiments) with different submission and reviewing requirements (completed work not required) and a much later submission deadline. <br /> #(PASSED) PROPOSAL 2 : the structure of the PC. There are 4 PC co-chairs: 1 NLP for long papers, 1 NLP for short papers, 1 Speech (for both long and short), 1 IR (for both long and short). The senior PC will be different for long and short papers (though potentially with overlap). The short paper PC will also handle demos. The Speech and IR co-chairs should have at least some visibility in the general NLP field. <br /> #(PASSED) PROPOSAL 3 : name. The conference has a name that (a) includes &quot;HLT&quot; in its short name and (b) &quot;Human Language Technologies&quot; in its long name. For specificity, this proposal is: &quot;ACL-08:HLT&quot; and &quot;The 46th Annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies&quot;. <br /> <br /> ==May 2007==<br /> &lt;p&gt;Free registration for some conference officials&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> #(PASSED) The General Chair, all PC co-chairs, and all local chairs (up to three) get free registration (not including the banquet) to ACL conferences. The free registration does not include ACL membership (it is assumed that people in these positions would already be ACL members). <br /> <br /> ==July 2006==<br /> <br /> &lt;p&gt;Internet access at conferences&lt;/p&gt;<br /> <br /> # (PASSED) Some recent conferences have not provided quality internet access. It was either too slow or limited. It was proposed that future conferences should provide easy access to fast internet (either as part of registration or for a separate fee). It is important that internet access is not restricted to a small number of ports (e.g., port 80) but rather to allow all ports normally used by mainstream internet protocols, including ssh, vpn, and remote desktop access.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Obsolete_2020-06-21&diff=73652 2020-06-20T15:16:59Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: Created page with &quot;The ACL stands with its Black community to affirm that Black lives matter and to condemn racial injustice in the USA and worldwide, including targeted racially motivated viole...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>The ACL stands with its Black community to affirm that Black lives matter and to condemn racial injustice in the USA and worldwide, including targeted racially motivated violence of any kind (physical, mental, emotional), and academic structures that prevent our Black scientists from thriving in our community. In particular, in solidarity with the Black community in North America, the ACL mourns for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Regis Korchinski-Paquet, and thousands of Black people who have lost their lives to this violence.<br /> <br /> The ACL has significantly grown its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives. We are committed to improving this work to make our community diverse and accessible to everyone.<br /> <br /> As is our responsibility, the ACL will regularly seek feedback and update its members on these initiatives and our community progress.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Rolling_Review_Proposal&diff=73650 2020-06-19T06:32:10Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>Published on June 19, 2020<br /> <br /> '''Note: We are soliciting feedback from the ACL community on the short- and long-term reviewing proposals. If you would like to provide feedback, please do so here:'''<br /> <br /> https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=9028kaqAQ0OMdrEjlJf7WQiNRJRoOx9OlzQS6C5hck5URVc2MDZPRFBVNDRRRjBaMjBQVk41RVpMOC4u<br /> <br /> The ACL reviewing committee has been working on improvements to the reviewing process and has recently introduced short term changes [https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Short-Term_Reform_Proposals_for_ACL_Reviewing]. What follows below is a proposal for a more long-term transition to a new system for review in *ACL conferences, where reviewing and acceptance of papers to publication venues is done in a two-step process:<br /> <br /> *'''Step 1 -- Centralized Rolling Review:''' Authors submit papers to a unified review pool with monthly deadlines (similarly to TACL). Review is handled by an action editor, and revision and resubmission of papers is allowed.<br /> <br /> *'''Step 2 -- Submission to Publication Venue:''' When a conference/workshop/journal submission opportunity comes around, authors may submit ''already reviewed'' papers to the conference, workshop, or journal for publication. Program chairs (possibly with the help of senior area chairs) will then accept a subset of submitted papers for presentation.<br /> <br /> These two steps already exist in current reviewing processes: reviewers and ACs write reviews and meta reviews, which then get sent to SACs and program chairs for final acceptance decisions. The main difference in this proposal is that the reviews and meta reviews are done in a centralized, rolling process, which provides numerous benefits, as described below.<br /> <br /> == Potential Advantages/Concerns ==<br /> <br /> Potential positive points of this new system are highlighted in blue, concerns are highlighted in red (many of these are covered in detail in the following sections).<br /> [[File:advantages-and-concerns.png|500px]]<br /> <br /> == Details of Step 1 -- Centralized Review ==<br /> <br /> The centralized review process will consist of submission to a centralized review system that has a large pool of potential “reviewers” (2000-4000). Among these reviewers, some percentage (20%?) who are particularly experienced or senior may also serve as “action editors”, who guide the review process and write meta-reviews for individual papers. There will also be a small number of “editors in chief” who oversee the entire process and handle any special cases (about 10).<br /> <br /> Below is an outline of what the first-pass review process may look like on a step-by-step basis. The number of days is an idealized estimate for when the process goes smoothly, and will need to be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.<br /> <br /> *'''Submission:''' Authors submit a paper to the unified review pool by a fixed deadline (e.g., the first of every month).<br /> *'''Action Editor Assignment (0 days):''' A system automatically assesses the paper content, and automatically assigns an action editor from the pool of senior editors. This assignment is based on several criteria: (a) automatically determined content match between the paper content and the action editors’ past publications, (b) lack of COIs, and (c) any requests for a reduced/increased load entered into the system by the editor, and (d) review balance, where an action editor who has recently handled many papers will have a positive balance and thus not be assigned as often, and vice-versa for negative balance.<br /> *'''Action Editor Confirmation (days 1-4):''' The action editor will confirm their ability to handle the paper and lack of COIs ASAP. In the case they have COIs or are not capable of handling the paper they will be in charge of selecting another serving action editor among several suggestions provided by the automatic system. If they do not feel that any of the action editors suggested by the system are adequately familiar with the topic, they can suggest an external action editor (who has not already reviewed for the reviewing pool), potentially also aided by a system. If there is no action editor in our community who can handle the paper at all, then the paper can be declined as out-of-scope (see “desk-rejects” below) after confirmation of this fact by an editor-in-chief.<br /> *'''Desk Rejects and Reviewer Assignment (days 5-7):''' After the action editor has been confirmed, the action editor will quickly check the paper for any major violations in formatting or other factors and desk reject the paper if it is in violation. The action editor will then be presented with a list of reviewers automatically suggested from the pool by the system based on criteria (a-d) above. The action editor will choose reviewers, using this automatic suggestion as a base. <br /> *'''Review (days 7-30):''' The reviewers conduct the normal review process.<br /> *'''Editor Meta-review and Review Release (days 30-35):''' The action editor will read the reviews, discuss with the reviewers if necessary, and:<br /> **Summarize the review results in a meta-review.<br /> **Perform a compliance check, checking several boxes confirming “the paper satisfies the formatting requirements (e.g. abiding by the page limit),” “the paper is written in comprehensible English (or any language accepted by *ACL publications),” “the paper is compliant with the ACL ethical code,” “the paper is topically within the scope of at least one *ACL venue.” In the very rare case (e.g. 2-4% of submitted papers?) that a paper does not satisfy these minimal criteria, it will not be allowed to proceed to the next step and may face a moratorium on resubmission for a certain period of time.<br /> *'''Next Steps:''' Assuming the paper passes the compliance check, the authors may then either:<br /> **Revise and request another round of review: If the authors are not yet satisfied with their review results, they may revise the paper to reflect reviewer comments, write an author response, and return to the beginning of Step 1. In this case, the paper will usually go to the same action editor and set of reviewers (with some exceptions, see detailed discussion below), and the previous reviews and the author response to them may be attached, as is currently done in TACL.<br /> **Submit to a publication venue: Proceed to Step 2 below, submitting the paper, with reviews and meta-reviews attached, to a conference/workshop/journal.<br /> <br /> Notably, in the ideal case, this allows for a decision within a little bit over a month. Based on this, if the authors want to revise their paper, they have a little less than a month to do so before the next deadline for minor revisions, and can spend some more time if they so choose (up to some reasonable time limit, e.g. 9 months, to prevent the article from losing relevance and the old reviews from becoming out-of-date).<br /> <br /> == Details of Step 2 -- Submission to Publication Venue ==<br /> <br /> The steps for Step 2, submission to a publication venue, are as follows:<br /> <br /> *'''Call for Submissions (-2 months or so):''' The publication venue would notify the community that they will be accepting submissions, and that papers that have been reviewed (and satisfy the compliance criteria) can be submitted at this time.<br /> *'''Submission Deadline (0 days):''' Authors will submit reviewed papers to the venue if they wish their paper to be considered for publication there.<br /> *'''Selection Process (2-6 weeks):''' The program chairs, possibly aided by area chairs, will sort through the already-reviewed submissions and build the program for the conference. Similarly to how program chairs do now, they will select the papers to be presented based on a combination of numerical scores, reviews and meta-reviews by the action editor, optional discussion between the PCs and the action editor, and consideration for diversity/direction of the program.<br /> *'''Post-Selection:''' Selected papers will be presented in the conference/workshop/journal. Authors of papers that are not selected can either submit them to the next publication opportunity, or can revise and resubmit the paper in an attempt to improve the reviews.<br /> <br /> == Frequently Asked Questions/Concerns ==<br /> <br /> ===Handling of Blind Review===<br /> <br /> During step 1, the centralized review process, papers will be blind according to the ACL review policy (for simplicity, we are not considering any changes to the blind review policy in this proposal).<br /> <br /> During step 2, consideration for presentation at a publication venue, the process could either be blind or not blind. Currently, in many conferences the authors are not blind to program chairs, and either blind or not blind to area chairs, but this policy could be adjusted appropriately. One advantage of not requiring papers to be blind in step 2 is that this would free the authors to make their papers public after they are satisfied with the results of step 1 (i.e. they have good reviews and are likely to be accepted to a venue of the authors’ choice).<br /> <br /> In addition, the *ACL may ''optionally'' consider establishing a centralized public blind (or after review, de-blinded) repository of papers submitted to the review process. This repository would be opt-in, so authors would be able to decide whether they want their papers to be made public during review. This would have the advantage of allowing authors who want their paper to be made available to do so in a way that still preserves blind review. <br /> <br /> ===Handling of “Areas” and Ensuring Diversity in Scientific Content===<br /> <br /> There are a few concerns regarding how a monolithic reviewing process would make changes to the current system:<br /> <br /> '''Areas:''' In conferences we currently have “areas” and “area chairs”, but in journals such as TACL (as well as other conferences such as ICLR) we just have “action editors” who handle each paper individually. How would this be resolved? Also, what are the selection criteria that program chairs use for selecting papers?<br /> <br /> '''Diversity:''' An *ACL conference still has autonomy to put together its own program. But this <br /> autonomy is greatly reduced because papers can only be drawn from the common <br /> pool, which is produced by a monolithic reviewing system.<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Answer'': For the review process, we may not need “areas”, rather just make sure we assign a competent action editor and set of reviewers, which would be area-independent. In the second step of deciding which papers are presented at a particular conference, then giving the program chairs guidance, but also freedom in their criteria, may be the best way. For example, program chairs can choose to use areas if they wish, but could also choose some other mechanism of ensuring quality and diversity of the scientific program.<br /> <br /> *'''Day-by-day diversity of the papers submitted to the rolling review process:''' The biggest risk here would be that people would choose not to submit papers to the reviewing pool because they think they would not be appreciated. This is probably linked to the perceived quality of the reviews they get, which is linked to the issues below.<br /> *'''Day-by-day capacity to have competent *action editors* handle a diverse set of papers:''' The pool of action editors will be relatively big, and in the current design the action editors will be automatically assigned. As noted above, if the automatically assigned action editor cannot sufficiently handle the paper they can be tasked with finding a new editor, ideally within, but perhaps even outside of the standing action editor pool.<br /> *'''Day-by-day capacity to have competent *reviewers* handle a diverse set of papers:''' Once the action editor is chosen, they will presumably be an expert in the field. They can then use the automated system to find a list of suggested reviewers, and choose them based on their expertise (as well as reviewing load, see below). If there are no reviewers currently within the reviewing pool, they can invite external reviewers to the reviewing pool (possibly suggested by a similar mechanism to the one mentioned above for action editors).<br /> *'''Ability of program chairs to encourage participation of action editors, reviewers, or authors in certain thematic areas:''' Note that the program chairs will always have some discretion with respect to how they build the program of the conference, as they do now. Let's say a conference wants to have a theme session. The simplest way to achieve this is an announcement to the effect of &quot;there will be a theme on XXX at ACL 2022, please submit papers to the reviewing pool on these topics!&quot; If the reviewing pool already has the capacity to review these papers, then nothing needs to be changed. However, if the reviewing pool is lacking in editors or reviewers in these areas, then the above mechanisms could be used to add editors or reviewers accordingly.<br /> <br /> === How to Transition to the System? ===<br /> <br /> Related venues will need to agree to use the system and also transition to using it seamlessly, how do we ensure venues agree to use the system? For major conferences (e.g. ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, EACL, AACL) and potentially also major journals (TACL), there are two potential options: complete adoption and partial adoption. In complete adoption, all submissions would be handled through the two-step rolling review system. In a partial adoption, the venues could run their own review process, but additionally accept submissions from the centralized reviewing pool. Complete adoption would likely be more efficient/fair, but also require a decision from the ACL executive board to switch over to this new system and mandate this of the program chairs. One option would be to do a partial adoption for a few years, then move to a complete adoption.<br /> <br /> For more focused workshops or other non-major conferences in the ACL anthology sometimes the character of venues is very different, and it is necessary to ensure that people still have flexibility and don’t feel constrained. Focused workshops may prefer to partially adopt the system and still have their own reviewing pool, but other workshops may also prefer not to have to handle reviewing themselves, as it is a major burden.<br /> <br /> === Measuring “Acceptance Rate” ===<br /> <br /> There are some organizations that measure the quality of conferences based on the acceptance rate of papers submitted there. This can be important for career advancement, so it is important to have an acceptance rate that appropriately represents the difficulty of publishing a paper in the conference. A few ideas for measuring acceptance rate for a particular venue are below:<br /> <br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Presentation Requests for Conference or Journal:''' This is simple, but may face problems if authors self-select, not requesting a presentation if their reviews are not good. Thus the acceptance rate could seem artificially high, which would make the venues seem less selective than they actually are.<br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Papers in the Review System:''' Another option would be to divide the number of accepted papers by the number of papers in the review system and eligible to make a presentation request at any point. This would give a low acceptance rate, because all papers submitted to ACL-related venues would be in the system making the denominator quite large.<br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Some Fraction of Papers in the Review System:''' We could take a middle-ground strategy between the two. For example, upon submission have authors select a preferred venue (ACL/EMNLP/NAACL), or preferred type of venue (Conference/Journal/Workshop). We could then use the fraction of the papers that selected a particular venue as preferred as an indication of that venue’s popularity, and calculate the denominator based on these statistics. Alternatively, we could use all papers in the system that selected a particular type of venue, e.g. “Conference”, in the denominator when calculating conference acceptance rates (and similarly for journals).<br /> *'''Compare Accepted Paper Scores to Full Submission Pool Scores:''' As another option, we could keep track of the overall distribution of numerical review scores in the system and the distribution for each conference. Then, we calculate an estimation of the review score necessary to be accepted at the conference, and find its percentile in the overall review pool. To take a made-up example, let's say that the median overall review score of papers accepted to ACL was 4.1, then and only 16% of papers in the overall review pool had scores 4.1 or higher. In this case, the acceptance rate for ACL would be reported as 16%. Instead of the median for each publication venue, we could also take the 10th or 20th percentile, representing the lower end of the venue’s accepted range.<br /> <br /> === Other Fundamental Comments/Concerns ===<br /> <br /> *'''How to avoid reviewer burnout?:''' Some people don’t want to be reviewing constantly, all the time, how do we prevent this in a rolling review system?<br /> **''Answer:'' As noted above, we can have a centralized system that keeps track of “review balance” how much reviewing people have done and tries to distribute it equitably. In addition, some people prefer to review many papers at a time as opposed to a few every month. Thus, at the beginning of the monthly reviewing cycle, we could give people a chance to bid on papers that they would like to handle, and if they want to do a lot of reviewing/chairing that month so they don’t have to do much other months, they can bid to take several papers, increasing their review balance so they don’t have to do reviewing in succeeding months. In addition, we may add the ability of reviewers to indicate that they are on vacation or otherwise unavailable.<br /> *'''Would the “revise and resubmit” option favor boring work or lengthen the review process?:''' There are concerns that a “revise and resubmit” option favors more conservative work, particularly if the reviewers are the same through multiple rounds of review. In addition, review can take longer.<br /> **''Answer:'' Regarding lengthening the review process, the authors are given an option to submit their work for presentation as soon as they like, so they can conclude the review process at a point where they choose once they have received initial reviews and the paper has been judged compliant. In addition, the authors can appeal for a different set of reviewers if they feel that their reviews were unfair or of poor quality. A central review process would also allow us to collect statistics and adjust as we learn more about the trends.<br /> *'''Papers being repeatedly rejected by conferences:''' What if in a &quot;pick-from-the-pool&quot; system, program chairs would have more leeway not picking that paper -- after all, they are not rejecting the paper, they are just making it available to other conferences/journals?<br /> **''Answer:'' This is also the case in the current system (often papers are rejected because they're &quot;not ready yet&quot;), but there is some chance that the system proposed here may encourage this further. One potential fix would be to encourage PCs to not pass over highly-rated papers too many times unless there is a really good reason. Because most PCs believe in the values of fairness, this could potentially favor highly-rated papers that have been passed over in the past.<br /> For papers that are not so highly rated, the authors have several choices (analogous to the choices they have in the current system): (a) revise the paper in an attempt to improve the review ratings, (b) lower their standards for where they present their papers, such as submitting to a workshop instead of a conference, (c) if we implement a centralized public repository of under-review or deblinded papers such as the “Findings of the EMNLP” or “ACL Archive”, allow the paper to remain there without being presented at any conference.<br /> <br /> ===Other Logistics Comments/Concerns===<br /> <br /> *'''Retraction:''' There is not currently a mechanism for retracting papers from the ACL anthology, and hence there is no mention of this in the proposal.<br /> **''Answer:'' Having a mechanism for retracting papers is probably important, but somewhat orthogonal to this proposal, and could potentially be decided by the ACL Exec separately.<br /> *'''Publishing Fees:''' TACL is an edited journal, and it costs money for the ACL to publish papers there, which is a concern if we move to something similar in the new system.<br /> **''Answer:'' It is likely that the majority of authors will still want to present their papers in conferences, like our system now, so this may not be an issue. However, if transitioning to a monthly review system causes a large increase in the number of submissions to edited journals, we may have to re-consider. One option would be to make these journals more selective, and have them represent the cream-of-the-crop of *ACL work, which may not be a bad thing.<br /> <br /> === Acknowledgements ===<br /> <br /> This document was drafted by Graham Neubig and revised by the ACL Reviewing Committee: Amanda Stent, Ani Nenkova, Anna Korhonen, Barbara Di Eugenio, Hinrich Schuetze, Iryna Gurevych, Joel Tetreault, Marti Hearst, Matt Gardner, Nitin Madnani, Tim Baldiwn, Trevor Cohn, Yang Liu.<br /> <br /> Thank you to the ACL Executive Committee for additional feedback.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Rolling_Review_Proposal&diff=73649 2020-06-19T06:30:49Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>Published on June 19, 2020<br /> <br /> '''Note: We are soliciting feedback from the ACL community on the short- and long-term reviewing proposals. If you would like to provide feedback, please do so here:'''<br /> <br /> https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=9028kaqAQ0OMdrEjlJf7WQiNRJRoOx9OlzQS6C5hck5URVc2MDZPRFBVNDRRRjBaMjBQVk41RVpMOC4u<br /> <br /> The ACL reviewing committee has been working on improvements to the reviewing process, has recently introduced short term changes [https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Short-Term_Reform_Proposals_for_ACL_Reviewing]a. What follows below is a proposal for a more long-term transition to a new system for review in *ACL conferences, where reviewing and acceptance of papers to publication venues is done in a two-step process:<br /> <br /> *'''Step 1 -- Centralized Rolling Review:''' Authors submit papers to a unified review pool with monthly deadlines (similarly to TACL). Review is handled by an action editor, and revision and resubmission of papers is allowed.<br /> <br /> *'''Step 2 -- Submission to Publication Venue:''' When a conference/workshop/journal submission opportunity comes around, authors may submit ''already reviewed'' papers to the conference, workshop, or journal for publication. Program chairs (possibly with the help of senior area chairs) will then accept a subset of submitted papers for presentation.<br /> <br /> These two steps already exist in current reviewing processes: reviewers and ACs write reviews and meta reviews, which then get sent to SACs and program chairs for final acceptance decisions. The main difference in this proposal is that the reviews and meta reviews are done in a centralized, rolling process, which provides numerous benefits, as described below.<br /> <br /> == Potential Advantages/Concerns ==<br /> <br /> Potential positive points of this new system are highlighted in blue, concerns are highlighted in red (many of these are covered in detail in the following sections).<br /> [[File:advantages-and-concerns.png|500px]]<br /> <br /> == Details of Step 1 -- Centralized Review ==<br /> <br /> The centralized review process will consist of submission to a centralized review system that has a large pool of potential “reviewers” (2000-4000). Among these reviewers, some percentage (20%?) who are particularly experienced or senior may also serve as “action editors”, who guide the review process and write meta-reviews for individual papers. There will also be a small number of “editors in chief” who oversee the entire process and handle any special cases (about 10).<br /> <br /> Below is an outline of what the first-pass review process may look like on a step-by-step basis. The number of days is an idealized estimate for when the process goes smoothly, and will need to be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.<br /> <br /> *'''Submission:''' Authors submit a paper to the unified review pool by a fixed deadline (e.g., the first of every month).<br /> *'''Action Editor Assignment (0 days):''' A system automatically assesses the paper content, and automatically assigns an action editor from the pool of senior editors. This assignment is based on several criteria: (a) automatically determined content match between the paper content and the action editors’ past publications, (b) lack of COIs, and (c) any requests for a reduced/increased load entered into the system by the editor, and (d) review balance, where an action editor who has recently handled many papers will have a positive balance and thus not be assigned as often, and vice-versa for negative balance.<br /> *'''Action Editor Confirmation (days 1-4):''' The action editor will confirm their ability to handle the paper and lack of COIs ASAP. In the case they have COIs or are not capable of handling the paper they will be in charge of selecting another serving action editor among several suggestions provided by the automatic system. If they do not feel that any of the action editors suggested by the system are adequately familiar with the topic, they can suggest an external action editor (who has not already reviewed for the reviewing pool), potentially also aided by a system. If there is no action editor in our community who can handle the paper at all, then the paper can be declined as out-of-scope (see “desk-rejects” below) after confirmation of this fact by an editor-in-chief.<br /> *'''Desk Rejects and Reviewer Assignment (days 5-7):''' After the action editor has been confirmed, the action editor will quickly check the paper for any major violations in formatting or other factors and desk reject the paper if it is in violation. The action editor will then be presented with a list of reviewers automatically suggested from the pool by the system based on criteria (a-d) above. The action editor will choose reviewers, using this automatic suggestion as a base. <br /> *'''Review (days 7-30):''' The reviewers conduct the normal review process.<br /> *'''Editor Meta-review and Review Release (days 30-35):''' The action editor will read the reviews, discuss with the reviewers if necessary, and:<br /> **Summarize the review results in a meta-review.<br /> **Perform a compliance check, checking several boxes confirming “the paper satisfies the formatting requirements (e.g. abiding by the page limit),” “the paper is written in comprehensible English (or any language accepted by *ACL publications),” “the paper is compliant with the ACL ethical code,” “the paper is topically within the scope of at least one *ACL venue.” In the very rare case (e.g. 2-4% of submitted papers?) that a paper does not satisfy these minimal criteria, it will not be allowed to proceed to the next step and may face a moratorium on resubmission for a certain period of time.<br /> *'''Next Steps:''' Assuming the paper passes the compliance check, the authors may then either:<br /> **Revise and request another round of review: If the authors are not yet satisfied with their review results, they may revise the paper to reflect reviewer comments, write an author response, and return to the beginning of Step 1. In this case, the paper will usually go to the same action editor and set of reviewers (with some exceptions, see detailed discussion below), and the previous reviews and the author response to them may be attached, as is currently done in TACL.<br /> **Submit to a publication venue: Proceed to Step 2 below, submitting the paper, with reviews and meta-reviews attached, to a conference/workshop/journal.<br /> <br /> Notably, in the ideal case, this allows for a decision within a little bit over a month. Based on this, if the authors want to revise their paper, they have a little less than a month to do so before the next deadline for minor revisions, and can spend some more time if they so choose (up to some reasonable time limit, e.g. 9 months, to prevent the article from losing relevance and the old reviews from becoming out-of-date).<br /> <br /> == Details of Step 2 -- Submission to Publication Venue ==<br /> <br /> The steps for Step 2, submission to a publication venue, are as follows:<br /> <br /> *'''Call for Submissions (-2 months or so):''' The publication venue would notify the community that they will be accepting submissions, and that papers that have been reviewed (and satisfy the compliance criteria) can be submitted at this time.<br /> *'''Submission Deadline (0 days):''' Authors will submit reviewed papers to the venue if they wish their paper to be considered for publication there.<br /> *'''Selection Process (2-6 weeks):''' The program chairs, possibly aided by area chairs, will sort through the already-reviewed submissions and build the program for the conference. Similarly to how program chairs do now, they will select the papers to be presented based on a combination of numerical scores, reviews and meta-reviews by the action editor, optional discussion between the PCs and the action editor, and consideration for diversity/direction of the program.<br /> *'''Post-Selection:''' Selected papers will be presented in the conference/workshop/journal. Authors of papers that are not selected can either submit them to the next publication opportunity, or can revise and resubmit the paper in an attempt to improve the reviews.<br /> <br /> == Frequently Asked Questions/Concerns ==<br /> <br /> ===Handling of Blind Review===<br /> <br /> During step 1, the centralized review process, papers will be blind according to the ACL review policy (for simplicity, we are not considering any changes to the blind review policy in this proposal).<br /> <br /> During step 2, consideration for presentation at a publication venue, the process could either be blind or not blind. Currently, in many conferences the authors are not blind to program chairs, and either blind or not blind to area chairs, but this policy could be adjusted appropriately. One advantage of not requiring papers to be blind in step 2 is that this would free the authors to make their papers public after they are satisfied with the results of step 1 (i.e. they have good reviews and are likely to be accepted to a venue of the authors’ choice).<br /> <br /> In addition, the *ACL may ''optionally'' consider establishing a centralized public blind (or after review, de-blinded) repository of papers submitted to the review process. This repository would be opt-in, so authors would be able to decide whether they want their papers to be made public during review. This would have the advantage of allowing authors who want their paper to be made available to do so in a way that still preserves blind review. <br /> <br /> ===Handling of “Areas” and Ensuring Diversity in Scientific Content===<br /> <br /> There are a few concerns regarding how a monolithic reviewing process would make changes to the current system:<br /> <br /> '''Areas:''' In conferences we currently have “areas” and “area chairs”, but in journals such as TACL (as well as other conferences such as ICLR) we just have “action editors” who handle each paper individually. How would this be resolved? Also, what are the selection criteria that program chairs use for selecting papers?<br /> <br /> '''Diversity:''' An *ACL conference still has autonomy to put together its own program. But this <br /> autonomy is greatly reduced because papers can only be drawn from the common <br /> pool, which is produced by a monolithic reviewing system.<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Answer'': For the review process, we may not need “areas”, rather just make sure we assign a competent action editor and set of reviewers, which would be area-independent. In the second step of deciding which papers are presented at a particular conference, then giving the program chairs guidance, but also freedom in their criteria, may be the best way. For example, program chairs can choose to use areas if they wish, but could also choose some other mechanism of ensuring quality and diversity of the scientific program.<br /> <br /> *'''Day-by-day diversity of the papers submitted to the rolling review process:''' The biggest risk here would be that people would choose not to submit papers to the reviewing pool because they think they would not be appreciated. This is probably linked to the perceived quality of the reviews they get, which is linked to the issues below.<br /> *'''Day-by-day capacity to have competent *action editors* handle a diverse set of papers:''' The pool of action editors will be relatively big, and in the current design the action editors will be automatically assigned. As noted above, if the automatically assigned action editor cannot sufficiently handle the paper they can be tasked with finding a new editor, ideally within, but perhaps even outside of the standing action editor pool.<br /> *'''Day-by-day capacity to have competent *reviewers* handle a diverse set of papers:''' Once the action editor is chosen, they will presumably be an expert in the field. They can then use the automated system to find a list of suggested reviewers, and choose them based on their expertise (as well as reviewing load, see below). If there are no reviewers currently within the reviewing pool, they can invite external reviewers to the reviewing pool (possibly suggested by a similar mechanism to the one mentioned above for action editors).<br /> *'''Ability of program chairs to encourage participation of action editors, reviewers, or authors in certain thematic areas:''' Note that the program chairs will always have some discretion with respect to how they build the program of the conference, as they do now. Let's say a conference wants to have a theme session. The simplest way to achieve this is an announcement to the effect of &quot;there will be a theme on XXX at ACL 2022, please submit papers to the reviewing pool on these topics!&quot; If the reviewing pool already has the capacity to review these papers, then nothing needs to be changed. However, if the reviewing pool is lacking in editors or reviewers in these areas, then the above mechanisms could be used to add editors or reviewers accordingly.<br /> <br /> === How to Transition to the System? ===<br /> <br /> Related venues will need to agree to use the system and also transition to using it seamlessly, how do we ensure venues agree to use the system? For major conferences (e.g. ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, EACL, AACL) and potentially also major journals (TACL), there are two potential options: complete adoption and partial adoption. In complete adoption, all submissions would be handled through the two-step rolling review system. In a partial adoption, the venues could run their own review process, but additionally accept submissions from the centralized reviewing pool. Complete adoption would likely be more efficient/fair, but also require a decision from the ACL executive board to switch over to this new system and mandate this of the program chairs. One option would be to do a partial adoption for a few years, then move to a complete adoption.<br /> <br /> For more focused workshops or other non-major conferences in the ACL anthology sometimes the character of venues is very different, and it is necessary to ensure that people still have flexibility and don’t feel constrained. Focused workshops may prefer to partially adopt the system and still have their own reviewing pool, but other workshops may also prefer not to have to handle reviewing themselves, as it is a major burden.<br /> <br /> === Measuring “Acceptance Rate” ===<br /> <br /> There are some organizations that measure the quality of conferences based on the acceptance rate of papers submitted there. This can be important for career advancement, so it is important to have an acceptance rate that appropriately represents the difficulty of publishing a paper in the conference. A few ideas for measuring acceptance rate for a particular venue are below:<br /> <br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Presentation Requests for Conference or Journal:''' This is simple, but may face problems if authors self-select, not requesting a presentation if their reviews are not good. Thus the acceptance rate could seem artificially high, which would make the venues seem less selective than they actually are.<br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Papers in the Review System:''' Another option would be to divide the number of accepted papers by the number of papers in the review system and eligible to make a presentation request at any point. This would give a low acceptance rate, because all papers submitted to ACL-related venues would be in the system making the denominator quite large.<br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Some Fraction of Papers in the Review System:''' We could take a middle-ground strategy between the two. For example, upon submission have authors select a preferred venue (ACL/EMNLP/NAACL), or preferred type of venue (Conference/Journal/Workshop). We could then use the fraction of the papers that selected a particular venue as preferred as an indication of that venue’s popularity, and calculate the denominator based on these statistics. Alternatively, we could use all papers in the system that selected a particular type of venue, e.g. “Conference”, in the denominator when calculating conference acceptance rates (and similarly for journals).<br /> *'''Compare Accepted Paper Scores to Full Submission Pool Scores:''' As another option, we could keep track of the overall distribution of numerical review scores in the system and the distribution for each conference. Then, we calculate an estimation of the review score necessary to be accepted at the conference, and find its percentile in the overall review pool. To take a made-up example, let's say that the median overall review score of papers accepted to ACL was 4.1, then and only 16% of papers in the overall review pool had scores 4.1 or higher. In this case, the acceptance rate for ACL would be reported as 16%. Instead of the median for each publication venue, we could also take the 10th or 20th percentile, representing the lower end of the venue’s accepted range.<br /> <br /> === Other Fundamental Comments/Concerns ===<br /> <br /> *'''How to avoid reviewer burnout?:''' Some people don’t want to be reviewing constantly, all the time, how do we prevent this in a rolling review system?<br /> **''Answer:'' As noted above, we can have a centralized system that keeps track of “review balance” how much reviewing people have done and tries to distribute it equitably. In addition, some people prefer to review many papers at a time as opposed to a few every month. Thus, at the beginning of the monthly reviewing cycle, we could give people a chance to bid on papers that they would like to handle, and if they want to do a lot of reviewing/chairing that month so they don’t have to do much other months, they can bid to take several papers, increasing their review balance so they don’t have to do reviewing in succeeding months. In addition, we may add the ability of reviewers to indicate that they are on vacation or otherwise unavailable.<br /> *'''Would the “revise and resubmit” option favor boring work or lengthen the review process?:''' There are concerns that a “revise and resubmit” option favors more conservative work, particularly if the reviewers are the same through multiple rounds of review. In addition, review can take longer.<br /> **''Answer:'' Regarding lengthening the review process, the authors are given an option to submit their work for presentation as soon as they like, so they can conclude the review process at a point where they choose once they have received initial reviews and the paper has been judged compliant. In addition, the authors can appeal for a different set of reviewers if they feel that their reviews were unfair or of poor quality. A central review process would also allow us to collect statistics and adjust as we learn more about the trends.<br /> *'''Papers being repeatedly rejected by conferences:''' What if in a &quot;pick-from-the-pool&quot; system, program chairs would have more leeway not picking that paper -- after all, they are not rejecting the paper, they are just making it available to other conferences/journals?<br /> **''Answer:'' This is also the case in the current system (often papers are rejected because they're &quot;not ready yet&quot;), but there is some chance that the system proposed here may encourage this further. One potential fix would be to encourage PCs to not pass over highly-rated papers too many times unless there is a really good reason. Because most PCs believe in the values of fairness, this could potentially favor highly-rated papers that have been passed over in the past.<br /> For papers that are not so highly rated, the authors have several choices (analogous to the choices they have in the current system): (a) revise the paper in an attempt to improve the review ratings, (b) lower their standards for where they present their papers, such as submitting to a workshop instead of a conference, (c) if we implement a centralized public repository of under-review or deblinded papers such as the “Findings of the EMNLP” or “ACL Archive”, allow the paper to remain there without being presented at any conference.<br /> <br /> ===Other Logistics Comments/Concerns===<br /> <br /> *'''Retraction:''' There is not currently a mechanism for retracting papers from the ACL anthology, and hence there is no mention of this in the proposal.<br /> **''Answer:'' Having a mechanism for retracting papers is probably important, but somewhat orthogonal to this proposal, and could potentially be decided by the ACL Exec separately.<br /> *'''Publishing Fees:''' TACL is an edited journal, and it costs money for the ACL to publish papers there, which is a concern if we move to something similar in the new system.<br /> **''Answer:'' It is likely that the majority of authors will still want to present their papers in conferences, like our system now, so this may not be an issue. However, if transitioning to a monthly review system causes a large increase in the number of submissions to edited journals, we may have to re-consider. One option would be to make these journals more selective, and have them represent the cream-of-the-crop of *ACL work, which may not be a bad thing.<br /> <br /> === Acknowledgements ===<br /> <br /> This document was drafted by Graham Neubig and revised by the ACL Reviewing Committee: Amanda Stent, Ani Nenkova, Anna Korhonen, Barbara Di Eugenio, Hinrich Schuetze, Iryna Gurevych, Joel Tetreault, Marti Hearst, Matt Gardner, Nitin Madnani, Tim Baldiwn, Trevor Cohn, Yang Liu.<br /> <br /> Thank you to the ACL Executive Committee for additional feedback.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Rolling_Review_Proposal&diff=73648 2020-06-19T06:26:44Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>Published on June 19, 2020<br /> <br /> '''Note: We are soliciting feedback from the ACL community on the short- and long-term reviewing proposals. If you would like to provide feedback, please do so here:'''<br /> <br /> https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=9028kaqAQ0OMdrEjlJf7WQiNRJRoOx9OlzQS6C5hck5URVc2MDZPRFBVNDRRRjBaMjBQVk41RVpMOC4u<br /> <br /> The ACL reviewing committee has been working on improvements to the reviewing process, has recently introduced short term changes [add link here]. What follows below is a proposal for a more long-term transition to a new system for review in *ACL conferences, where reviewing and acceptance of papers to publication venues is done in a two-step process:<br /> <br /> *'''Step 1 -- Centralized Rolling Review:''' Authors submit papers to a unified review pool with monthly deadlines (similarly to TACL). Review is handled by an action editor, and revision and resubmission of papers is allowed.<br /> <br /> *'''Step 2 -- Submission to Publication Venue:''' When a conference/workshop/journal submission opportunity comes around, authors may submit ''already reviewed'' papers to the conference, workshop, or journal for publication. Program chairs (possibly with the help of senior area chairs) will then accept a subset of submitted papers for presentation.<br /> <br /> These two steps already exist in current reviewing processes: reviewers and ACs write reviews and meta reviews, which then get sent to SACs and program chairs for final acceptance decisions. The main difference in this proposal is that the reviews and meta reviews are done in a centralized, rolling process, which provides numerous benefits, as described below.<br /> <br /> == Potential Advantages/Concerns ==<br /> <br /> Potential positive points of this new system are highlighted in blue, concerns are highlighted in red (many of these are covered in detail in the following sections).<br /> [[File:advantages-and-concerns.png|500px]]<br /> <br /> == Details of Step 1 -- Centralized Review ==<br /> <br /> The centralized review process will consist of submission to a centralized review system that has a large pool of potential “reviewers” (2000-4000). Among these reviewers, some percentage (20%?) who are particularly experienced or senior may also serve as “action editors”, who guide the review process and write meta-reviews for individual papers. There will also be a small number of “editors in chief” who oversee the entire process and handle any special cases (about 10).<br /> <br /> Below is an outline of what the first-pass review process may look like on a step-by-step basis. The number of days is an idealized estimate for when the process goes smoothly, and will need to be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.<br /> <br /> *'''Submission:''' Authors submit a paper to the unified review pool by a fixed deadline (e.g., the first of every month).<br /> *'''Action Editor Assignment (0 days):''' A system automatically assesses the paper content, and automatically assigns an action editor from the pool of senior editors. This assignment is based on several criteria: (a) automatically determined content match between the paper content and the action editors’ past publications, (b) lack of COIs, and (c) any requests for a reduced/increased load entered into the system by the editor, and (d) review balance, where an action editor who has recently handled many papers will have a positive balance and thus not be assigned as often, and vice-versa for negative balance.<br /> *'''Action Editor Confirmation (days 1-4):''' The action editor will confirm their ability to handle the paper and lack of COIs ASAP. In the case they have COIs or are not capable of handling the paper they will be in charge of selecting another serving action editor among several suggestions provided by the automatic system. If they do not feel that any of the action editors suggested by the system are adequately familiar with the topic, they can suggest an external action editor (who has not already reviewed for the reviewing pool), potentially also aided by a system. If there is no action editor in our community who can handle the paper at all, then the paper can be declined as out-of-scope (see “desk-rejects” below) after confirmation of this fact by an editor-in-chief.<br /> *'''Desk Rejects and Reviewer Assignment (days 5-7):''' After the action editor has been confirmed, the action editor will quickly check the paper for any major violations in formatting or other factors and desk reject the paper if it is in violation. The action editor will then be presented with a list of reviewers automatically suggested from the pool by the system based on criteria (a-d) above. The action editor will choose reviewers, using this automatic suggestion as a base. <br /> *'''Review (days 7-30):''' The reviewers conduct the normal review process.<br /> *'''Editor Meta-review and Review Release (days 30-35):''' The action editor will read the reviews, discuss with the reviewers if necessary, and:<br /> **Summarize the review results in a meta-review.<br /> **Perform a compliance check, checking several boxes confirming “the paper satisfies the formatting requirements (e.g. abiding by the page limit),” “the paper is written in comprehensible English (or any language accepted by *ACL publications),” “the paper is compliant with the ACL ethical code,” “the paper is topically within the scope of at least one *ACL venue.” In the very rare case (e.g. 2-4% of submitted papers?) that a paper does not satisfy these minimal criteria, it will not be allowed to proceed to the next step and may face a moratorium on resubmission for a certain period of time.<br /> *'''Next Steps:''' Assuming the paper passes the compliance check, the authors may then either:<br /> **Revise and request another round of review: If the authors are not yet satisfied with their review results, they may revise the paper to reflect reviewer comments, write an author response, and return to the beginning of Step 1. In this case, the paper will usually go to the same action editor and set of reviewers (with some exceptions, see detailed discussion below), and the previous reviews and the author response to them may be attached, as is currently done in TACL.<br /> **Submit to a publication venue: Proceed to Step 2 below, submitting the paper, with reviews and meta-reviews attached, to a conference/workshop/journal.<br /> <br /> Notably, in the ideal case, this allows for a decision within a little bit over a month. Based on this, if the authors want to revise their paper, they have a little less than a month to do so before the next deadline for minor revisions, and can spend some more time if they so choose (up to some reasonable time limit, e.g. 9 months, to prevent the article from losing relevance and the old reviews from becoming out-of-date).<br /> <br /> == Details of Step 2 -- Submission to Publication Venue ==<br /> <br /> The steps for Step 2, submission to a publication venue, are as follows:<br /> <br /> *'''Call for Submissions (-2 months or so):''' The publication venue would notify the community that they will be accepting submissions, and that papers that have been reviewed (and satisfy the compliance criteria) can be submitted at this time.<br /> *'''Submission Deadline (0 days):''' Authors will submit reviewed papers to the venue if they wish their paper to be considered for publication there.<br /> *'''Selection Process (2-6 weeks):''' The program chairs, possibly aided by area chairs, will sort through the already-reviewed submissions and build the program for the conference. Similarly to how program chairs do now, they will select the papers to be presented based on a combination of numerical scores, reviews and meta-reviews by the action editor, optional discussion between the PCs and the action editor, and consideration for diversity/direction of the program.<br /> *'''Post-Selection:''' Selected papers will be presented in the conference/workshop/journal. Authors of papers that are not selected can either submit them to the next publication opportunity, or can revise and resubmit the paper in an attempt to improve the reviews.<br /> <br /> == Frequently Asked Questions/Concerns ==<br /> <br /> ===Handling of Blind Review===<br /> <br /> During step 1, the centralized review process, papers will be blind according to the ACL review policy (for simplicity, we are not considering any changes to the blind review policy in this proposal).<br /> <br /> During step 2, consideration for presentation at a publication venue, the process could either be blind or not blind. Currently, in many conferences the authors are not blind to program chairs, and either blind or not blind to area chairs, but this policy could be adjusted appropriately. One advantage of not requiring papers to be blind in step 2 is that this would free the authors to make their papers public after they are satisfied with the results of step 1 (i.e. they have good reviews and are likely to be accepted to a venue of the authors’ choice).<br /> <br /> In addition, the *ACL may ''optionally'' consider establishing a centralized public blind (or after review, de-blinded) repository of papers submitted to the review process. This repository would be opt-in, so authors would be able to decide whether they want their papers to be made public during review. This would have the advantage of allowing authors who want their paper to be made available to do so in a way that still preserves blind review. <br /> <br /> ===Handling of “Areas” and Ensuring Diversity in Scientific Content===<br /> <br /> There are a few concerns regarding how a monolithic reviewing process would make changes to the current system:<br /> <br /> '''Areas:''' In conferences we currently have “areas” and “area chairs”, but in journals such as TACL (as well as other conferences such as ICLR) we just have “action editors” who handle each paper individually. How would this be resolved? Also, what are the selection criteria that program chairs use for selecting papers?<br /> <br /> '''Diversity:''' An *ACL conference still has autonomy to put together its own program. But this <br /> autonomy is greatly reduced because papers can only be drawn from the common <br /> pool, which is produced by a monolithic reviewing system.<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Answer'': For the review process, we may not need “areas”, rather just make sure we assign a competent action editor and set of reviewers, which would be area-independent. In the second step of deciding which papers are presented at a particular conference, then giving the program chairs guidance, but also freedom in their criteria, may be the best way. For example, program chairs can choose to use areas if they wish, but could also choose some other mechanism of ensuring quality and diversity of the scientific program.<br /> <br /> *'''Day-by-day diversity of the papers submitted to the rolling review process:''' The biggest risk here would be that people would choose not to submit papers to the reviewing pool because they think they would not be appreciated. This is probably linked to the perceived quality of the reviews they get, which is linked to the issues below.<br /> *'''Day-by-day capacity to have competent *action editors* handle a diverse set of papers:''' The pool of action editors will be relatively big, and in the current design the action editors will be automatically assigned. As noted above, if the automatically assigned action editor cannot sufficiently handle the paper they can be tasked with finding a new editor, ideally within, but perhaps even outside of the standing action editor pool.<br /> *'''Day-by-day capacity to have competent *reviewers* handle a diverse set of papers:''' Once the action editor is chosen, they will presumably be an expert in the field. They can then use the automated system to find a list of suggested reviewers, and choose them based on their expertise (as well as reviewing load, see below). If there are no reviewers currently within the reviewing pool, they can invite external reviewers to the reviewing pool (possibly suggested by a similar mechanism to the one mentioned above for action editors).<br /> *'''Ability of program chairs to encourage participation of action editors, reviewers, or authors in certain thematic areas:''' Note that the program chairs will always have some discretion with respect to how they build the program of the conference, as they do now. Let's say a conference wants to have a theme session. The simplest way to achieve this is an announcement to the effect of &quot;there will be a theme on XXX at ACL 2022, please submit papers to the reviewing pool on these topics!&quot; If the reviewing pool already has the capacity to review these papers, then nothing needs to be changed. However, if the reviewing pool is lacking in editors or reviewers in these areas, then the above mechanisms could be used to add editors or reviewers accordingly.<br /> <br /> === How to Transition to the System? ===<br /> <br /> Related venues will need to agree to use the system and also transition to using it seamlessly, how do we ensure venues agree to use the system? For major conferences (e.g. ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, EACL, AACL) and potentially also major journals (TACL), there are two potential options: complete adoption and partial adoption. In complete adoption, all submissions would be handled through the two-step rolling review system. In a partial adoption, the venues could run their own review process, but additionally accept submissions from the centralized reviewing pool. Complete adoption would likely be more efficient/fair, but also require a decision from the ACL executive board to switch over to this new system and mandate this of the program chairs. One option would be to do a partial adoption for a few years, then move to a complete adoption.<br /> <br /> For more focused workshops or other non-major conferences in the ACL anthology sometimes the character of venues is very different, and it is necessary to ensure that people still have flexibility and don’t feel constrained. Focused workshops may prefer to partially adopt the system and still have their own reviewing pool, but other workshops may also prefer not to have to handle reviewing themselves, as it is a major burden.<br /> <br /> === Measuring “Acceptance Rate” ===<br /> <br /> There are some organizations that measure the quality of conferences based on the acceptance rate of papers submitted there. This can be important for career advancement, so it is important to have an acceptance rate that appropriately represents the difficulty of publishing a paper in the conference. A few ideas for measuring acceptance rate for a particular venue are below:<br /> <br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Presentation Requests for Conference or Journal:''' This is simple, but may face problems if authors self-select, not requesting a presentation if their reviews are not good. Thus the acceptance rate could seem artificially high, which would make the venues seem less selective than they actually are.<br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Papers in the Review System:''' Another option would be to divide the number of accepted papers by the number of papers in the review system and eligible to make a presentation request at any point. This would give a low acceptance rate, because all papers submitted to ACL-related venues would be in the system making the denominator quite large.<br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Some Fraction of Papers in the Review System:''' We could take a middle-ground strategy between the two. For example, upon submission have authors select a preferred venue (ACL/EMNLP/NAACL), or preferred type of venue (Conference/Journal/Workshop). We could then use the fraction of the papers that selected a particular venue as preferred as an indication of that venue’s popularity, and calculate the denominator based on these statistics. Alternatively, we could use all papers in the system that selected a particular type of venue, e.g. “Conference”, in the denominator when calculating conference acceptance rates (and similarly for journals).<br /> *'''Compare Accepted Paper Scores to Full Submission Pool Scores:''' As another option, we could keep track of the overall distribution of numerical review scores in the system and the distribution for each conference. Then, we calculate an estimation of the review score necessary to be accepted at the conference, and find its percentile in the overall review pool. To take a made-up example, let's say that the median overall review score of papers accepted to ACL was 4.1, then and only 16% of papers in the overall review pool had scores 4.1 or higher. In this case, the acceptance rate for ACL would be reported as 16%. Instead of the median for each publication venue, we could also take the 10th or 20th percentile, representing the lower end of the venue’s accepted range.<br /> <br /> === Other Fundamental Comments/Concerns ===<br /> <br /> *'''How to avoid reviewer burnout?:''' Some people don’t want to be reviewing constantly, all the time, how do we prevent this in a rolling review system?<br /> **''Answer:'' As noted above, we can have a centralized system that keeps track of “review balance” how much reviewing people have done and tries to distribute it equitably. In addition, some people prefer to review many papers at a time as opposed to a few every month. Thus, at the beginning of the monthly reviewing cycle, we could give people a chance to bid on papers that they would like to handle, and if they want to do a lot of reviewing/chairing that month so they don’t have to do much other months, they can bid to take several papers, increasing their review balance so they don’t have to do reviewing in succeeding months. In addition, we may add the ability of reviewers to indicate that they are on vacation or otherwise unavailable.<br /> *'''Would the “revise and resubmit” option favor boring work or lengthen the review process?:''' There are concerns that a “revise and resubmit” option favors more conservative work, particularly if the reviewers are the same through multiple rounds of review. In addition, review can take longer.<br /> **''Answer:'' Regarding lengthening the review process, the authors are given an option to submit their work for presentation as soon as they like, so they can conclude the review process at a point where they choose once they have received initial reviews and the paper has been judged compliant. In addition, the authors can appeal for a different set of reviewers if they feel that their reviews were unfair or of poor quality. A central review process would also allow us to collect statistics and adjust as we learn more about the trends.<br /> *'''Papers being repeatedly rejected by conferences:''' What if in a &quot;pick-from-the-pool&quot; system, program chairs would have more leeway not picking that paper -- after all, they are not rejecting the paper, they are just making it available to other conferences/journals?<br /> **''Answer:'' This is also the case in the current system (often papers are rejected because they're &quot;not ready yet&quot;), but there is some chance that the system proposed here may encourage this further. One potential fix would be to encourage PCs to not pass over highly-rated papers too many times unless there is a really good reason. Because most PCs believe in the values of fairness, this could potentially favor highly-rated papers that have been passed over in the past.<br /> For papers that are not so highly rated, the authors have several choices (analogous to the choices they have in the current system): (a) revise the paper in an attempt to improve the review ratings, (b) lower their standards for where they present their papers, such as submitting to a workshop instead of a conference, (c) if we implement a centralized public repository of under-review or deblinded papers such as the “Findings of the EMNLP” or “ACL Archive”, allow the paper to remain there without being presented at any conference.<br /> <br /> ===Other Logistics Comments/Concerns===<br /> <br /> *'''Retraction:''' There is not currently a mechanism for retracting papers from the ACL anthology, and hence there is no mention of this in the proposal.<br /> **''Answer:'' Having a mechanism for retracting papers is probably important, but somewhat orthogonal to this proposal, and could potentially be decided by the ACL Exec separately.<br /> *'''Publishing Fees:''' TACL is an edited journal, and it costs money for the ACL to publish papers there, which is a concern if we move to something similar in the new system.<br /> **''Answer:'' It is likely that the majority of authors will still want to present their papers in conferences, like our system now, so this may not be an issue. However, if transitioning to a monthly review system causes a large increase in the number of submissions to edited journals, we may have to re-consider. One option would be to make these journals more selective, and have them represent the cream-of-the-crop of *ACL work, which may not be a bad thing.<br /> <br /> === Acknowledgements ===<br /> <br /> This document was drafted by Graham Neubig and revised by the ACL Reviewing Committee: Amanda Stent, Ani Nenkova, Anna Korhonen, Barbara Di Eugenio, Hinrich Schuetze, Iryna Gurevych, Joel Tetreault, Marti Hearst, Matt Gardner, Nitin Madnani, Tim Baldiwn, Trevor Cohn, Yang Liu.<br /> <br /> Thank you to the ACL Executive Committee for additional feedback.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Short-Term_Reform_Proposals_for_ACL_Reviewing&diff=73647 2020-06-19T06:25:04Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Note: We are soliciting feedback from the ACL community on the short- and long-term reviewing proposals. If you would like to provide feedback, please do so here:'''<br /> <br /> https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=9028kaqAQ0OMdrEjlJf7WQiNRJRoOx9OlzQS6C5hck5URVc2MDZPRFBVNDRRRjBaMjBQVk41RVpMOC4u<br /> <br /> ''These short-term proposals were adopted by the ACL Exec on June 8 as an initial step to improve''<br /> ''reviewing. As we work towards a more comprehensive reform, we welcome feedback on all the aspects''<br /> ''of our current reviewing system (including the short-term proposals). Feedback from our community will be''<br /> ''valuable in informing further development of the system.''<br /> <br /> The rapid growth of submissions and the increasing popularity of preprints have caused '''four problems''' to the current ACL reviewing system:<br /> <br /> '''Review is not blind to all papers.''' Any time a paper is posted on arXiv, it is not blind. The best reviewer for a paper would be familiar with all public work that is relevant to the paper being reviewed, which includes papers that were published on arXiv. When some papers are blind and others are not, our review process is biased and unfair.<br /> <br /> '''Turnaround time is too long.''' A large factor in the incentive to go to arXiv is that turnaround time from when a paper is finished to when it can be made public can be many months, especially when you get several random rejects. Reducing this turnaround time is key to removing the incentive to go to arXiv before review. If turnaround time is fast enough, we can feel better about banning arXiv before review without worrying that it will drive people away to other venues.<br /> <br /> '''Review quality is too low.''' Good, experienced reviewers do not have a strong external incentive to do a good job; we are relying on their internal incentives only. New reviewers do not have good mechanisms for getting trained.<br /> <br /> '''Not enough space for all good papers.''' Program chairs have to reject good papers in order to meet acceptance rates, which are required by some in our community for various reasons. This is unfortunate by itself, and when combined with low review quality and randomness due to just three (perhaps poorly assigned) reviewers, it leads to a large number of resubmissions, dramatically increasing review load.<br /> <br /> To address these problems, the ACL Committee on Reviewing has been working on two proposals for reforming the reviewing system of ACL-related conferences: short-term and long-term. This document presents the short term proposals. It consists of four complementary actions that can be realistically implemented to improve the ACL review process in the near future (while the committee continues to investigate changes that require a longer lead time). These actions jointly address the four problems identified below. They are likely to be accepted by the majority of NLP researchers and they involve keeping existing ACL policies in place, including those regarding [[ACL Policies for Submission, Review and Citation | submission, review and citation]].<br /> <br /> == 1 Establishing ACL Archives ==<br /> <br /> The pace of NLP research has increased in recent years, both in terms of the volume of papers submitted to top conferences and in perceived reduction in the “half-life” of papers. At the same time, acceptance rates for leading conferences (e.g., ACL, NAACL, EMNLP) have remained at around 20–25% which means that the absolute volume of rejected papers has actually increased. Therefore, a significant number of papers that fall below the acceptance threshold for an individual conference are still likely to be of a publishable standard. This proposal attempts to address this issue, and find a middle ground in maintaining the selectivity of major conferences (a necessary evil for academic prestige) and providing authors of such “publishable” papers the option to have their peer-reviewed papers published. The papers would be published ''outside'' of the main conference proceedings in a new journal-like outlet that we call '''ACL Archives''' here:<br /> <br /> * The review process would be slightly modified so that it’s possible to separate between the paper ranking process that is used to select papers for the conference and the classification of whether a paper has sufficient substance/quality/novelty to warrant publication in the first place. This could be done as follows: during the review process, in addition to existing criteria (e.g., novelty, rigour, and experimental soundness), reviewers, AC and ultimately PC Chairs would assess papers for ''publishability''. PC Chairs could implement this new criterion as an additional Agree/Disagree field in the review form, possibly responding to the following question (using a 4-point Likert scale): ''Is the paper of a suitable standard to be publishable in its current form, possibly with minor revisions based on reviewer feedback?'' <br /> <br /> * To authors of papers deemed publishable in principle, PC chairs would offer the possibility to have the papers published with the stamp of peer review, but through an alternative mechanism to the main conference proceedings. To avoid any ambiguity with papers published in the main conference proceedings, a new journal-like publication outlet should be created (e.g. ACL Archives). This would be indexed in the ACL Anthology and there would be a single issue per conference only. When the decision is made to publish in this form, the research would be considered formally published, precluding the possibility of also submitting the paper to the next conference for publication. Authors could choose to opt in or out. Papers for which this is likely to be an attractive option include those for which publication is particularly time-critical (e.g. the novelty of the work would be diminished if submitted to the next conference).<br /> <br /> * PC Chairs would not offer a presentation slot for these papers at the conference. They could decide to organize an LREC-like mass poster session, as long as the regular papers at the main conference are clearly demarcated and given a greater prominence at the conference, to avoid any further reinforcement of the impression that regular papers with poster presentations are somehow second-rate.<br /> <br /> == 2 Establishing Best Reviewer Award ==<br /> <br /> This action involves encouraging reviewers to do high quality reviews. Authors, other reviewers, and ACs would be asked to rate the quality, tone, helpfulness and accuracy of reviews. PC chairs would be encouraged to establish Best Reviewer Award Committee and give awards to the top k reviewers. The award would be a strong signal on great service that people would include in their CVs. Optionally, ACL could also decide to give the best reviewers discount on conference registration.<br /> <br /> == 3 Training Reviewers ==<br /> <br /> Also, to improve the quality of reviews produced by less experienced members of the PC, PC Chairs could be encouraged to mentor reviewers (e.g., following the model established by ACL 2020 that involves having ACs mentor one or two first-time reviewers). PC Chairs could ask senior reviewers and PhD advisors to help and contribute to a collection of advice (e.g. via blog posts, podcasts, etc. and/or collect the various advice blog posts already produced for previous conferences in one central location). The recipients of the Best Reviewer Awards could also be invited by PC Chairs to write blog posts where they share their experience or they could give tutorials at ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> == 4 Opt-in Revise and Resubmit ==<br /> <br /> One way to reduce current review load is to share the reviews for a rejected and resubmitted paper between two conferences where the authors agree to such review sharing. PC Chairs of one conference (e.g., ACL) could be encouraged to add a field in the submission form to enable authors to indicate that their paper was previously submitted to another conference (e.g., NAACL) to provide the submission number and consent for reviews to be shared. After the submission deadline, PC Chairs would request a one-time report (e.g. a spreadsheet) from the PC chairs of each previous conference containing reviews of these papers. PC chairs could then invite the reviewers of the previous conference to re-review the revised paper, or they could share the previous reviews (anonymized) with the new reviewers. As an alternative, if reviews themselves cannot be shared, reviewers’ names could be shared so that the paper could be sent to (a subset of) the reviewers who first reviewed it.<br /> <br /> Such an opt-in revise and resubmit system has been discussed before but has never been implemented by ACL. Making this optional would allow to gauge community interest in the approach before possibly implementing it on a large scale later.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Short-Term_Reform_Proposals_for_ACL_Reviewing&diff=73646 2020-06-19T06:24:52Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Note: We are soliciting feedback from the ACL community on the short- and long-term reviewing proposals. If you would like to provide feedback, please do so here:'''<br /> <br /> https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=9028kaqAQ0OMdrEjlJf7WQiNRJRoOx9OlzQS6C5hck5URVc2MDZPRFBVNDRRRjBaMjBQVk41RVpMOC4u<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''These short-term proposals were adopted by the ACL Exec on June 8 as an initial step to improve''<br /> ''reviewing. As we work towards a more comprehensive reform, we welcome feedback on all the aspects''<br /> ''of our current reviewing system (including the short-term proposals). Feedback from our community will be''<br /> ''valuable in informing further development of the system.''<br /> <br /> The rapid growth of submissions and the increasing popularity of preprints have caused '''four problems''' to the current ACL reviewing system:<br /> <br /> '''Review is not blind to all papers.''' Any time a paper is posted on arXiv, it is not blind. The best reviewer for a paper would be familiar with all public work that is relevant to the paper being reviewed, which includes papers that were published on arXiv. When some papers are blind and others are not, our review process is biased and unfair.<br /> <br /> '''Turnaround time is too long.''' A large factor in the incentive to go to arXiv is that turnaround time from when a paper is finished to when it can be made public can be many months, especially when you get several random rejects. Reducing this turnaround time is key to removing the incentive to go to arXiv before review. If turnaround time is fast enough, we can feel better about banning arXiv before review without worrying that it will drive people away to other venues.<br /> <br /> '''Review quality is too low.''' Good, experienced reviewers do not have a strong external incentive to do a good job; we are relying on their internal incentives only. New reviewers do not have good mechanisms for getting trained.<br /> <br /> '''Not enough space for all good papers.''' Program chairs have to reject good papers in order to meet acceptance rates, which are required by some in our community for various reasons. This is unfortunate by itself, and when combined with low review quality and randomness due to just three (perhaps poorly assigned) reviewers, it leads to a large number of resubmissions, dramatically increasing review load.<br /> <br /> To address these problems, the ACL Committee on Reviewing has been working on two proposals for reforming the reviewing system of ACL-related conferences: short-term and long-term. This document presents the short term proposals. It consists of four complementary actions that can be realistically implemented to improve the ACL review process in the near future (while the committee continues to investigate changes that require a longer lead time). These actions jointly address the four problems identified below. They are likely to be accepted by the majority of NLP researchers and they involve keeping existing ACL policies in place, including those regarding [[ACL Policies for Submission, Review and Citation | submission, review and citation]].<br /> <br /> == 1 Establishing ACL Archives ==<br /> <br /> The pace of NLP research has increased in recent years, both in terms of the volume of papers submitted to top conferences and in perceived reduction in the “half-life” of papers. At the same time, acceptance rates for leading conferences (e.g., ACL, NAACL, EMNLP) have remained at around 20–25% which means that the absolute volume of rejected papers has actually increased. Therefore, a significant number of papers that fall below the acceptance threshold for an individual conference are still likely to be of a publishable standard. This proposal attempts to address this issue, and find a middle ground in maintaining the selectivity of major conferences (a necessary evil for academic prestige) and providing authors of such “publishable” papers the option to have their peer-reviewed papers published. The papers would be published ''outside'' of the main conference proceedings in a new journal-like outlet that we call '''ACL Archives''' here:<br /> <br /> * The review process would be slightly modified so that it’s possible to separate between the paper ranking process that is used to select papers for the conference and the classification of whether a paper has sufficient substance/quality/novelty to warrant publication in the first place. This could be done as follows: during the review process, in addition to existing criteria (e.g., novelty, rigour, and experimental soundness), reviewers, AC and ultimately PC Chairs would assess papers for ''publishability''. PC Chairs could implement this new criterion as an additional Agree/Disagree field in the review form, possibly responding to the following question (using a 4-point Likert scale): ''Is the paper of a suitable standard to be publishable in its current form, possibly with minor revisions based on reviewer feedback?'' <br /> <br /> * To authors of papers deemed publishable in principle, PC chairs would offer the possibility to have the papers published with the stamp of peer review, but through an alternative mechanism to the main conference proceedings. To avoid any ambiguity with papers published in the main conference proceedings, a new journal-like publication outlet should be created (e.g. ACL Archives). This would be indexed in the ACL Anthology and there would be a single issue per conference only. When the decision is made to publish in this form, the research would be considered formally published, precluding the possibility of also submitting the paper to the next conference for publication. Authors could choose to opt in or out. Papers for which this is likely to be an attractive option include those for which publication is particularly time-critical (e.g. the novelty of the work would be diminished if submitted to the next conference).<br /> <br /> * PC Chairs would not offer a presentation slot for these papers at the conference. They could decide to organize an LREC-like mass poster session, as long as the regular papers at the main conference are clearly demarcated and given a greater prominence at the conference, to avoid any further reinforcement of the impression that regular papers with poster presentations are somehow second-rate.<br /> <br /> == 2 Establishing Best Reviewer Award ==<br /> <br /> This action involves encouraging reviewers to do high quality reviews. Authors, other reviewers, and ACs would be asked to rate the quality, tone, helpfulness and accuracy of reviews. PC chairs would be encouraged to establish Best Reviewer Award Committee and give awards to the top k reviewers. The award would be a strong signal on great service that people would include in their CVs. Optionally, ACL could also decide to give the best reviewers discount on conference registration.<br /> <br /> == 3 Training Reviewers ==<br /> <br /> Also, to improve the quality of reviews produced by less experienced members of the PC, PC Chairs could be encouraged to mentor reviewers (e.g., following the model established by ACL 2020 that involves having ACs mentor one or two first-time reviewers). PC Chairs could ask senior reviewers and PhD advisors to help and contribute to a collection of advice (e.g. via blog posts, podcasts, etc. and/or collect the various advice blog posts already produced for previous conferences in one central location). The recipients of the Best Reviewer Awards could also be invited by PC Chairs to write blog posts where they share their experience or they could give tutorials at ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> == 4 Opt-in Revise and Resubmit ==<br /> <br /> One way to reduce current review load is to share the reviews for a rejected and resubmitted paper between two conferences where the authors agree to such review sharing. PC Chairs of one conference (e.g., ACL) could be encouraged to add a field in the submission form to enable authors to indicate that their paper was previously submitted to another conference (e.g., NAACL) to provide the submission number and consent for reviews to be shared. After the submission deadline, PC Chairs would request a one-time report (e.g. a spreadsheet) from the PC chairs of each previous conference containing reviews of these papers. PC chairs could then invite the reviewers of the previous conference to re-review the revised paper, or they could share the previous reviews (anonymized) with the new reviewers. As an alternative, if reviews themselves cannot be shared, reviewers’ names could be shared so that the paper could be sent to (a subset of) the reviewers who first reviewed it.<br /> <br /> Such an opt-in revise and resubmit system has been discussed before but has never been implemented by ACL. Making this optional would allow to gauge community interest in the approach before possibly implementing it on a large scale later.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Short-Term_Reform_Proposals_for_ACL_Reviewing&diff=73645 2020-06-19T06:24:39Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Note: We are soliciting feedback from the ACL community on the short- and long-term reviewing proposals. If you would like to provide feedback, please do so here:'''<br /> <br /> https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=9028kaqAQ0OMdrEjlJf7WQiNRJRoOx9OlzQS6C5hck5URV<br /> c2MDZPRFBVNDRRRjBaMjBQVk41RVpMOC4u<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''These short-term proposals were adopted by the ACL Exec on June 8 as an initial step to improve''<br /> ''reviewing. As we work towards a more comprehensive reform, we welcome feedback on all the aspects''<br /> ''of our current reviewing system (including the short-term proposals). Feedback from our community will be''<br /> ''valuable in informing further development of the system.''<br /> <br /> The rapid growth of submissions and the increasing popularity of preprints have caused '''four problems''' to the current ACL reviewing system:<br /> <br /> '''Review is not blind to all papers.''' Any time a paper is posted on arXiv, it is not blind. The best reviewer for a paper would be familiar with all public work that is relevant to the paper being reviewed, which includes papers that were published on arXiv. When some papers are blind and others are not, our review process is biased and unfair.<br /> <br /> '''Turnaround time is too long.''' A large factor in the incentive to go to arXiv is that turnaround time from when a paper is finished to when it can be made public can be many months, especially when you get several random rejects. Reducing this turnaround time is key to removing the incentive to go to arXiv before review. If turnaround time is fast enough, we can feel better about banning arXiv before review without worrying that it will drive people away to other venues.<br /> <br /> '''Review quality is too low.''' Good, experienced reviewers do not have a strong external incentive to do a good job; we are relying on their internal incentives only. New reviewers do not have good mechanisms for getting trained.<br /> <br /> '''Not enough space for all good papers.''' Program chairs have to reject good papers in order to meet acceptance rates, which are required by some in our community for various reasons. This is unfortunate by itself, and when combined with low review quality and randomness due to just three (perhaps poorly assigned) reviewers, it leads to a large number of resubmissions, dramatically increasing review load.<br /> <br /> To address these problems, the ACL Committee on Reviewing has been working on two proposals for reforming the reviewing system of ACL-related conferences: short-term and long-term. This document presents the short term proposals. It consists of four complementary actions that can be realistically implemented to improve the ACL review process in the near future (while the committee continues to investigate changes that require a longer lead time). These actions jointly address the four problems identified below. They are likely to be accepted by the majority of NLP researchers and they involve keeping existing ACL policies in place, including those regarding [[ACL Policies for Submission, Review and Citation | submission, review and citation]].<br /> <br /> == 1 Establishing ACL Archives ==<br /> <br /> The pace of NLP research has increased in recent years, both in terms of the volume of papers submitted to top conferences and in perceived reduction in the “half-life” of papers. At the same time, acceptance rates for leading conferences (e.g., ACL, NAACL, EMNLP) have remained at around 20–25% which means that the absolute volume of rejected papers has actually increased. Therefore, a significant number of papers that fall below the acceptance threshold for an individual conference are still likely to be of a publishable standard. This proposal attempts to address this issue, and find a middle ground in maintaining the selectivity of major conferences (a necessary evil for academic prestige) and providing authors of such “publishable” papers the option to have their peer-reviewed papers published. The papers would be published ''outside'' of the main conference proceedings in a new journal-like outlet that we call '''ACL Archives''' here:<br /> <br /> * The review process would be slightly modified so that it’s possible to separate between the paper ranking process that is used to select papers for the conference and the classification of whether a paper has sufficient substance/quality/novelty to warrant publication in the first place. This could be done as follows: during the review process, in addition to existing criteria (e.g., novelty, rigour, and experimental soundness), reviewers, AC and ultimately PC Chairs would assess papers for ''publishability''. PC Chairs could implement this new criterion as an additional Agree/Disagree field in the review form, possibly responding to the following question (using a 4-point Likert scale): ''Is the paper of a suitable standard to be publishable in its current form, possibly with minor revisions based on reviewer feedback?'' <br /> <br /> * To authors of papers deemed publishable in principle, PC chairs would offer the possibility to have the papers published with the stamp of peer review, but through an alternative mechanism to the main conference proceedings. To avoid any ambiguity with papers published in the main conference proceedings, a new journal-like publication outlet should be created (e.g. ACL Archives). This would be indexed in the ACL Anthology and there would be a single issue per conference only. When the decision is made to publish in this form, the research would be considered formally published, precluding the possibility of also submitting the paper to the next conference for publication. Authors could choose to opt in or out. Papers for which this is likely to be an attractive option include those for which publication is particularly time-critical (e.g. the novelty of the work would be diminished if submitted to the next conference).<br /> <br /> * PC Chairs would not offer a presentation slot for these papers at the conference. They could decide to organize an LREC-like mass poster session, as long as the regular papers at the main conference are clearly demarcated and given a greater prominence at the conference, to avoid any further reinforcement of the impression that regular papers with poster presentations are somehow second-rate.<br /> <br /> == 2 Establishing Best Reviewer Award ==<br /> <br /> This action involves encouraging reviewers to do high quality reviews. Authors, other reviewers, and ACs would be asked to rate the quality, tone, helpfulness and accuracy of reviews. PC chairs would be encouraged to establish Best Reviewer Award Committee and give awards to the top k reviewers. The award would be a strong signal on great service that people would include in their CVs. Optionally, ACL could also decide to give the best reviewers discount on conference registration.<br /> <br /> == 3 Training Reviewers ==<br /> <br /> Also, to improve the quality of reviews produced by less experienced members of the PC, PC Chairs could be encouraged to mentor reviewers (e.g., following the model established by ACL 2020 that involves having ACs mentor one or two first-time reviewers). PC Chairs could ask senior reviewers and PhD advisors to help and contribute to a collection of advice (e.g. via blog posts, podcasts, etc. and/or collect the various advice blog posts already produced for previous conferences in one central location). The recipients of the Best Reviewer Awards could also be invited by PC Chairs to write blog posts where they share their experience or they could give tutorials at ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> == 4 Opt-in Revise and Resubmit ==<br /> <br /> One way to reduce current review load is to share the reviews for a rejected and resubmitted paper between two conferences where the authors agree to such review sharing. PC Chairs of one conference (e.g., ACL) could be encouraged to add a field in the submission form to enable authors to indicate that their paper was previously submitted to another conference (e.g., NAACL) to provide the submission number and consent for reviews to be shared. After the submission deadline, PC Chairs would request a one-time report (e.g. a spreadsheet) from the PC chairs of each previous conference containing reviews of these papers. PC chairs could then invite the reviewers of the previous conference to re-review the revised paper, or they could share the previous reviews (anonymized) with the new reviewers. As an alternative, if reviews themselves cannot be shared, reviewers’ names could be shared so that the paper could be sent to (a subset of) the reviewers who first reviewed it.<br /> <br /> Such an opt-in revise and resubmit system has been discussed before but has never been implemented by ACL. Making this optional would allow to gauge community interest in the approach before possibly implementing it on a large scale later.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Short-Term_Reform_Proposals_for_ACL_Reviewing&diff=73644 2020-06-19T06:23:26Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>''These short-term proposals were adopted by the ACL Exec on June 8 as an initial step to improve''<br /> ''reviewing. As we work towards a more comprehensive reform, we welcome feedback on all the aspects''<br /> ''of our current reviewing system (including the short-term proposals). Feedback from our community will be''<br /> ''valuable in informing further development of the system.''<br /> <br /> The rapid growth of submissions and the increasing popularity of preprints have caused '''four problems''' to the current ACL reviewing system:<br /> <br /> '''Review is not blind to all papers.''' Any time a paper is posted on arXiv, it is not blind. The best reviewer for a paper would be familiar with all public work that is relevant to the paper being reviewed, which includes papers that were published on arXiv. When some papers are blind and others are not, our review process is biased and unfair.<br /> <br /> '''Turnaround time is too long.''' A large factor in the incentive to go to arXiv is that turnaround time from when a paper is finished to when it can be made public can be many months, especially when you get several random rejects. Reducing this turnaround time is key to removing the incentive to go to arXiv before review. If turnaround time is fast enough, we can feel better about banning arXiv before review without worrying that it will drive people away to other venues.<br /> <br /> '''Review quality is too low.''' Good, experienced reviewers do not have a strong external incentive to do a good job; we are relying on their internal incentives only. New reviewers do not have good mechanisms for getting trained.<br /> <br /> '''Not enough space for all good papers.''' Program chairs have to reject good papers in order to meet acceptance rates, which are required by some in our community for various reasons. This is unfortunate by itself, and when combined with low review quality and randomness due to just three (perhaps poorly assigned) reviewers, it leads to a large number of resubmissions, dramatically increasing review load.<br /> <br /> To address these problems, the ACL Committee on Reviewing has been working on two proposals for reforming the reviewing system of ACL-related conferences: short-term and long-term. This document presents the short term proposals. It consists of four complementary actions that can be realistically implemented to improve the ACL review process in the near future (while the committee continues to investigate changes that require a longer lead time). These actions jointly address the four problems identified below. They are likely to be accepted by the majority of NLP researchers and they involve keeping existing ACL policies in place, including those regarding [[ACL Policies for Submission, Review and Citation | submission, review and citation]].<br /> <br /> == 1 Establishing ACL Archives ==<br /> <br /> The pace of NLP research has increased in recent years, both in terms of the volume of papers submitted to top conferences and in perceived reduction in the “half-life” of papers. At the same time, acceptance rates for leading conferences (e.g., ACL, NAACL, EMNLP) have remained at around 20–25% which means that the absolute volume of rejected papers has actually increased. Therefore, a significant number of papers that fall below the acceptance threshold for an individual conference are still likely to be of a publishable standard. This proposal attempts to address this issue, and find a middle ground in maintaining the selectivity of major conferences (a necessary evil for academic prestige) and providing authors of such “publishable” papers the option to have their peer-reviewed papers published. The papers would be published ''outside'' of the main conference proceedings in a new journal-like outlet that we call '''ACL Archives''' here:<br /> <br /> * The review process would be slightly modified so that it’s possible to separate between the paper ranking process that is used to select papers for the conference and the classification of whether a paper has sufficient substance/quality/novelty to warrant publication in the first place. This could be done as follows: during the review process, in addition to existing criteria (e.g., novelty, rigour, and experimental soundness), reviewers, AC and ultimately PC Chairs would assess papers for ''publishability''. PC Chairs could implement this new criterion as an additional Agree/Disagree field in the review form, possibly responding to the following question (using a 4-point Likert scale): ''Is the paper of a suitable standard to be publishable in its current form, possibly with minor revisions based on reviewer feedback?'' <br /> <br /> * To authors of papers deemed publishable in principle, PC chairs would offer the possibility to have the papers published with the stamp of peer review, but through an alternative mechanism to the main conference proceedings. To avoid any ambiguity with papers published in the main conference proceedings, a new journal-like publication outlet should be created (e.g. ACL Archives). This would be indexed in the ACL Anthology and there would be a single issue per conference only. When the decision is made to publish in this form, the research would be considered formally published, precluding the possibility of also submitting the paper to the next conference for publication. Authors could choose to opt in or out. Papers for which this is likely to be an attractive option include those for which publication is particularly time-critical (e.g. the novelty of the work would be diminished if submitted to the next conference).<br /> <br /> * PC Chairs would not offer a presentation slot for these papers at the conference. They could decide to organize an LREC-like mass poster session, as long as the regular papers at the main conference are clearly demarcated and given a greater prominence at the conference, to avoid any further reinforcement of the impression that regular papers with poster presentations are somehow second-rate.<br /> <br /> == 2 Establishing Best Reviewer Award ==<br /> <br /> This action involves encouraging reviewers to do high quality reviews. Authors, other reviewers, and ACs would be asked to rate the quality, tone, helpfulness and accuracy of reviews. PC chairs would be encouraged to establish Best Reviewer Award Committee and give awards to the top k reviewers. The award would be a strong signal on great service that people would include in their CVs. Optionally, ACL could also decide to give the best reviewers discount on conference registration.<br /> <br /> == 3 Training Reviewers ==<br /> <br /> Also, to improve the quality of reviews produced by less experienced members of the PC, PC Chairs could be encouraged to mentor reviewers (e.g., following the model established by ACL 2020 that involves having ACs mentor one or two first-time reviewers). PC Chairs could ask senior reviewers and PhD advisors to help and contribute to a collection of advice (e.g. via blog posts, podcasts, etc. and/or collect the various advice blog posts already produced for previous conferences in one central location). The recipients of the Best Reviewer Awards could also be invited by PC Chairs to write blog posts where they share their experience or they could give tutorials at ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> == 4 Opt-in Revise and Resubmit ==<br /> <br /> One way to reduce current review load is to share the reviews for a rejected and resubmitted paper between two conferences where the authors agree to such review sharing. PC Chairs of one conference (e.g., ACL) could be encouraged to add a field in the submission form to enable authors to indicate that their paper was previously submitted to another conference (e.g., NAACL) to provide the submission number and consent for reviews to be shared. After the submission deadline, PC Chairs would request a one-time report (e.g. a spreadsheet) from the PC chairs of each previous conference containing reviews of these papers. PC chairs could then invite the reviewers of the previous conference to re-review the revised paper, or they could share the previous reviews (anonymized) with the new reviewers. As an alternative, if reviews themselves cannot be shared, reviewers’ names could be shared so that the paper could be sent to (a subset of) the reviewers who first reviewed it.<br /> <br /> Such an opt-in revise and resubmit system has been discussed before but has never been implemented by ACL. Making this optional would allow to gauge community interest in the approach before possibly implementing it on a large scale later.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Short-Term_Reform_Proposals_for_ACL_Reviewing&diff=73643 2020-06-19T06:22:57Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>''These short-term proposals were adopted by the ACL Exec on June 8 as an initial step to improve<br /> reviewing. As we work towards a more comprehensive reform, we welcome feedback on all the aspects<br /> of our current reviewing system (including the short-term proposals). Feedback from our community will be<br /> valuable in informing further development of the system.''<br /> <br /> The rapid growth of submissions and the increasing popularity of preprints have caused '''four problems''' to the current ACL reviewing system:<br /> <br /> '''Review is not blind to all papers.''' Any time a paper is posted on arXiv, it is not blind. The best reviewer for a paper would be familiar with all public work that is relevant to the paper being reviewed, which includes papers that were published on arXiv. When some papers are blind and others are not, our review process is biased and unfair.<br /> <br /> '''Turnaround time is too long.''' A large factor in the incentive to go to arXiv is that turnaround time from when a paper is finished to when it can be made public can be many months, especially when you get several random rejects. Reducing this turnaround time is key to removing the incentive to go to arXiv before review. If turnaround time is fast enough, we can feel better about banning arXiv before review without worrying that it will drive people away to other venues.<br /> <br /> '''Review quality is too low.''' Good, experienced reviewers do not have a strong external incentive to do a good job; we are relying on their internal incentives only. New reviewers do not have good mechanisms for getting trained.<br /> <br /> '''Not enough space for all good papers.''' Program chairs have to reject good papers in order to meet acceptance rates, which are required by some in our community for various reasons. This is unfortunate by itself, and when combined with low review quality and randomness due to just three (perhaps poorly assigned) reviewers, it leads to a large number of resubmissions, dramatically increasing review load.<br /> <br /> To address these problems, the ACL Committee on Reviewing has been working on two proposals for reforming the reviewing system of ACL-related conferences: short-term and long-term. This document presents the short term proposals. It consists of four complementary actions that can be realistically implemented to improve the ACL review process in the near future (while the committee continues to investigate changes that require a longer lead time). These actions jointly address the four problems identified below. They are likely to be accepted by the majority of NLP researchers and they involve keeping existing ACL policies in place, including those regarding [[ACL Policies for Submission, Review and Citation | submission, review and citation]].<br /> <br /> == 1 Establishing ACL Archives ==<br /> <br /> The pace of NLP research has increased in recent years, both in terms of the volume of papers submitted to top conferences and in perceived reduction in the “half-life” of papers. At the same time, acceptance rates for leading conferences (e.g., ACL, NAACL, EMNLP) have remained at around 20–25% which means that the absolute volume of rejected papers has actually increased. Therefore, a significant number of papers that fall below the acceptance threshold for an individual conference are still likely to be of a publishable standard. This proposal attempts to address this issue, and find a middle ground in maintaining the selectivity of major conferences (a necessary evil for academic prestige) and providing authors of such “publishable” papers the option to have their peer-reviewed papers published. The papers would be published ''outside'' of the main conference proceedings in a new journal-like outlet that we call '''ACL Archives''' here:<br /> <br /> * The review process would be slightly modified so that it’s possible to separate between the paper ranking process that is used to select papers for the conference and the classification of whether a paper has sufficient substance/quality/novelty to warrant publication in the first place. This could be done as follows: during the review process, in addition to existing criteria (e.g., novelty, rigour, and experimental soundness), reviewers, AC and ultimately PC Chairs would assess papers for ''publishability''. PC Chairs could implement this new criterion as an additional Agree/Disagree field in the review form, possibly responding to the following question (using a 4-point Likert scale): ''Is the paper of a suitable standard to be publishable in its current form, possibly with minor revisions based on reviewer feedback?'' <br /> <br /> * To authors of papers deemed publishable in principle, PC chairs would offer the possibility to have the papers published with the stamp of peer review, but through an alternative mechanism to the main conference proceedings. To avoid any ambiguity with papers published in the main conference proceedings, a new journal-like publication outlet should be created (e.g. ACL Archives). This would be indexed in the ACL Anthology and there would be a single issue per conference only. When the decision is made to publish in this form, the research would be considered formally published, precluding the possibility of also submitting the paper to the next conference for publication. Authors could choose to opt in or out. Papers for which this is likely to be an attractive option include those for which publication is particularly time-critical (e.g. the novelty of the work would be diminished if submitted to the next conference).<br /> <br /> * PC Chairs would not offer a presentation slot for these papers at the conference. They could decide to organize an LREC-like mass poster session, as long as the regular papers at the main conference are clearly demarcated and given a greater prominence at the conference, to avoid any further reinforcement of the impression that regular papers with poster presentations are somehow second-rate.<br /> <br /> == 2 Establishing Best Reviewer Award ==<br /> <br /> This action involves encouraging reviewers to do high quality reviews. Authors, other reviewers, and ACs would be asked to rate the quality, tone, helpfulness and accuracy of reviews. PC chairs would be encouraged to establish Best Reviewer Award Committee and give awards to the top k reviewers. The award would be a strong signal on great service that people would include in their CVs. Optionally, ACL could also decide to give the best reviewers discount on conference registration.<br /> <br /> == 3 Training Reviewers ==<br /> <br /> Also, to improve the quality of reviews produced by less experienced members of the PC, PC Chairs could be encouraged to mentor reviewers (e.g., following the model established by ACL 2020 that involves having ACs mentor one or two first-time reviewers). PC Chairs could ask senior reviewers and PhD advisors to help and contribute to a collection of advice (e.g. via blog posts, podcasts, etc. and/or collect the various advice blog posts already produced for previous conferences in one central location). The recipients of the Best Reviewer Awards could also be invited by PC Chairs to write blog posts where they share their experience or they could give tutorials at ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> == 4 Opt-in Revise and Resubmit ==<br /> <br /> One way to reduce current review load is to share the reviews for a rejected and resubmitted paper between two conferences where the authors agree to such review sharing. PC Chairs of one conference (e.g., ACL) could be encouraged to add a field in the submission form to enable authors to indicate that their paper was previously submitted to another conference (e.g., NAACL) to provide the submission number and consent for reviews to be shared. After the submission deadline, PC Chairs would request a one-time report (e.g. a spreadsheet) from the PC chairs of each previous conference containing reviews of these papers. PC chairs could then invite the reviewers of the previous conference to re-review the revised paper, or they could share the previous reviews (anonymized) with the new reviewers. As an alternative, if reviews themselves cannot be shared, reviewers’ names could be shared so that the paper could be sent to (a subset of) the reviewers who first reviewed it.<br /> <br /> Such an opt-in revise and resubmit system has been discussed before but has never been implemented by ACL. Making this optional would allow to gauge community interest in the approach before possibly implementing it on a large scale later.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Short-Term_Reform_Proposals_for_ACL_Reviewing&diff=73642 2020-06-19T06:21:54Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>These short-term proposals were adopted by the ACL Exec on June 8 as an initial step to improve<br /> reviewing. As we work towards a more comprehensive reform, we welcome feedback on all the aspects<br /> of our current reviewing system (including the short-term proposals). Feedback from our community will be<br /> valuable in informing further development of the system.<br /> <br /> The rapid growth of submissions and the increasing popularity of preprints have caused '''four problems''' to the current ACL reviewing system:<br /> <br /> '''Review is not blind to all papers.''' Any time a paper is posted on arXiv, it is not blind. The best reviewer for a paper would be familiar with all public work that is relevant to the paper being reviewed, which includes papers that were published on arXiv. When some papers are blind and others are not, our review process is biased and unfair.<br /> <br /> '''Turnaround time is too long.''' A large factor in the incentive to go to arXiv is that turnaround time from when a paper is finished to when it can be made public can be many months, especially when you get several random rejects. Reducing this turnaround time is key to removing the incentive to go to arXiv before review. If turnaround time is fast enough, we can feel better about banning arXiv before review without worrying that it will drive people away to other venues.<br /> <br /> '''Review quality is too low.''' Good, experienced reviewers do not have a strong external incentive to do a good job; we are relying on their internal incentives only. New reviewers do not have good mechanisms for getting trained.<br /> <br /> '''Not enough space for all good papers.''' Program chairs have to reject good papers in order to meet acceptance rates, which are required by some in our community for various reasons. This is unfortunate by itself, and when combined with low review quality and randomness due to just three (perhaps poorly assigned) reviewers, it leads to a large number of resubmissions, dramatically increasing review load.<br /> <br /> To address these problems, the ACL Committee on Reviewing has been working on two proposals for reforming the reviewing system of ACL-related conferences: short-term and long-term. This document presents the short term proposals. It consists of four complementary actions that can be realistically implemented to improve the ACL review process in the near future (while the committee continues to investigate changes that require a longer lead time). These actions jointly address the four problems identified below. They are likely to be accepted by the majority of NLP researchers and they involve keeping existing ACL policies in place, including those regarding [[ACL Policies for Submission, Review and Citation | submission, review and citation]].<br /> <br /> == 1 Establishing ACL Archives ==<br /> <br /> The pace of NLP research has increased in recent years, both in terms of the volume of papers submitted to top conferences and in perceived reduction in the “half-life” of papers. At the same time, acceptance rates for leading conferences (e.g., ACL, NAACL, EMNLP) have remained at around 20–25% which means that the absolute volume of rejected papers has actually increased. Therefore, a significant number of papers that fall below the acceptance threshold for an individual conference are still likely to be of a publishable standard. This proposal attempts to address this issue, and find a middle ground in maintaining the selectivity of major conferences (a necessary evil for academic prestige) and providing authors of such “publishable” papers the option to have their peer-reviewed papers published. The papers would be published ''outside'' of the main conference proceedings in a new journal-like outlet that we call '''ACL Archives''' here:<br /> <br /> * The review process would be slightly modified so that it’s possible to separate between the paper ranking process that is used to select papers for the conference and the classification of whether a paper has sufficient substance/quality/novelty to warrant publication in the first place. This could be done as follows: during the review process, in addition to existing criteria (e.g., novelty, rigour, and experimental soundness), reviewers, AC and ultimately PC Chairs would assess papers for ''publishability''. PC Chairs could implement this new criterion as an additional Agree/Disagree field in the review form, possibly responding to the following question (using a 4-point Likert scale): ''Is the paper of a suitable standard to be publishable in its current form, possibly with minor revisions based on reviewer feedback?'' <br /> <br /> * To authors of papers deemed publishable in principle, PC chairs would offer the possibility to have the papers published with the stamp of peer review, but through an alternative mechanism to the main conference proceedings. To avoid any ambiguity with papers published in the main conference proceedings, a new journal-like publication outlet should be created (e.g. ACL Archives). This would be indexed in the ACL Anthology and there would be a single issue per conference only. When the decision is made to publish in this form, the research would be considered formally published, precluding the possibility of also submitting the paper to the next conference for publication. Authors could choose to opt in or out. Papers for which this is likely to be an attractive option include those for which publication is particularly time-critical (e.g. the novelty of the work would be diminished if submitted to the next conference).<br /> <br /> * PC Chairs would not offer a presentation slot for these papers at the conference. They could decide to organize an LREC-like mass poster session, as long as the regular papers at the main conference are clearly demarcated and given a greater prominence at the conference, to avoid any further reinforcement of the impression that regular papers with poster presentations are somehow second-rate.<br /> <br /> == 2 Establishing Best Reviewer Award ==<br /> <br /> This action involves encouraging reviewers to do high quality reviews. Authors, other reviewers, and ACs would be asked to rate the quality, tone, helpfulness and accuracy of reviews. PC chairs would be encouraged to establish Best Reviewer Award Committee and give awards to the top k reviewers. The award would be a strong signal on great service that people would include in their CVs. Optionally, ACL could also decide to give the best reviewers discount on conference registration.<br /> <br /> == 3 Training Reviewers ==<br /> <br /> Also, to improve the quality of reviews produced by less experienced members of the PC, PC Chairs could be encouraged to mentor reviewers (e.g., following the model established by ACL 2020 that involves having ACs mentor one or two first-time reviewers). PC Chairs could ask senior reviewers and PhD advisors to help and contribute to a collection of advice (e.g. via blog posts, podcasts, etc. and/or collect the various advice blog posts already produced for previous conferences in one central location). The recipients of the Best Reviewer Awards could also be invited by PC Chairs to write blog posts where they share their experience or they could give tutorials at ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> == 4 Opt-in Revise and Resubmit ==<br /> <br /> One way to reduce current review load is to share the reviews for a rejected and resubmitted paper between two conferences where the authors agree to such review sharing. PC Chairs of one conference (e.g., ACL) could be encouraged to add a field in the submission form to enable authors to indicate that their paper was previously submitted to another conference (e.g., NAACL) to provide the submission number and consent for reviews to be shared. After the submission deadline, PC Chairs would request a one-time report (e.g. a spreadsheet) from the PC chairs of each previous conference containing reviews of these papers. PC chairs could then invite the reviewers of the previous conference to re-review the revised paper, or they could share the previous reviews (anonymized) with the new reviewers. As an alternative, if reviews themselves cannot be shared, reviewers’ names could be shared so that the paper could be sent to (a subset of) the reviewers who first reviewed it.<br /> <br /> Such an opt-in revise and resubmit system has been discussed before but has never been implemented by ACL. Making this optional would allow to gauge community interest in the approach before possibly implementing it on a large scale later.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Rolling_Review_Proposal&diff=73641 2020-06-19T06:21:21Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> <br /> The ACL reviewing committee has been working on improvements to the reviewing process, has recently introduced short term changes [add link here]. What follows below is a proposal for a more long-term transition to a new system for review in *ACL conferences, where reviewing and acceptance of papers to publication venues is done in a two-step process:<br /> <br /> *'''Step 1 -- Centralized Rolling Review:''' Authors submit papers to a unified review pool with monthly deadlines (similarly to TACL). Review is handled by an action editor, and revision and resubmission of papers is allowed.<br /> <br /> *'''Step 2 -- Submission to Publication Venue:''' When a conference/workshop/journal submission opportunity comes around, authors may submit ''already reviewed'' papers to the conference, workshop, or journal for publication. Program chairs (possibly with the help of senior area chairs) will then accept a subset of submitted papers for presentation.<br /> <br /> These two steps already exist in current reviewing processes: reviewers and ACs write reviews and meta reviews, which then get sent to SACs and program chairs for final acceptance decisions. The main difference in this proposal is that the reviews and meta reviews are done in a centralized, rolling process, which provides numerous benefits, as described below.<br /> <br /> == Potential Advantages/Concerns ==<br /> <br /> Potential positive points of this new system are highlighted in blue, concerns are highlighted in red (many of these are covered in detail in the following sections).<br /> [[File:advantages-and-concerns.png|500px]]<br /> <br /> == Details of Step 1 -- Centralized Review ==<br /> <br /> The centralized review process will consist of submission to a centralized review system that has a large pool of potential “reviewers” (2000-4000). Among these reviewers, some percentage (20%?) who are particularly experienced or senior may also serve as “action editors”, who guide the review process and write meta-reviews for individual papers. There will also be a small number of “editors in chief” who oversee the entire process and handle any special cases (about 10).<br /> <br /> Below is an outline of what the first-pass review process may look like on a step-by-step basis. The number of days is an idealized estimate for when the process goes smoothly, and will need to be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.<br /> <br /> *'''Submission:''' Authors submit a paper to the unified review pool by a fixed deadline (e.g., the first of every month).<br /> *'''Action Editor Assignment (0 days):''' A system automatically assesses the paper content, and automatically assigns an action editor from the pool of senior editors. This assignment is based on several criteria: (a) automatically determined content match between the paper content and the action editors’ past publications, (b) lack of COIs, and (c) any requests for a reduced/increased load entered into the system by the editor, and (d) review balance, where an action editor who has recently handled many papers will have a positive balance and thus not be assigned as often, and vice-versa for negative balance.<br /> *'''Action Editor Confirmation (days 1-4):''' The action editor will confirm their ability to handle the paper and lack of COIs ASAP. In the case they have COIs or are not capable of handling the paper they will be in charge of selecting another serving action editor among several suggestions provided by the automatic system. If they do not feel that any of the action editors suggested by the system are adequately familiar with the topic, they can suggest an external action editor (who has not already reviewed for the reviewing pool), potentially also aided by a system. If there is no action editor in our community who can handle the paper at all, then the paper can be declined as out-of-scope (see “desk-rejects” below) after confirmation of this fact by an editor-in-chief.<br /> *'''Desk Rejects and Reviewer Assignment (days 5-7):''' After the action editor has been confirmed, the action editor will quickly check the paper for any major violations in formatting or other factors and desk reject the paper if it is in violation. The action editor will then be presented with a list of reviewers automatically suggested from the pool by the system based on criteria (a-d) above. The action editor will choose reviewers, using this automatic suggestion as a base. <br /> *'''Review (days 7-30):''' The reviewers conduct the normal review process.<br /> *'''Editor Meta-review and Review Release (days 30-35):''' The action editor will read the reviews, discuss with the reviewers if necessary, and:<br /> **Summarize the review results in a meta-review.<br /> **Perform a compliance check, checking several boxes confirming “the paper satisfies the formatting requirements (e.g. abiding by the page limit),” “the paper is written in comprehensible English (or any language accepted by *ACL publications),” “the paper is compliant with the ACL ethical code,” “the paper is topically within the scope of at least one *ACL venue.” In the very rare case (e.g. 2-4% of submitted papers?) that a paper does not satisfy these minimal criteria, it will not be allowed to proceed to the next step and may face a moratorium on resubmission for a certain period of time.<br /> *'''Next Steps:''' Assuming the paper passes the compliance check, the authors may then either:<br /> **Revise and request another round of review: If the authors are not yet satisfied with their review results, they may revise the paper to reflect reviewer comments, write an author response, and return to the beginning of Step 1. In this case, the paper will usually go to the same action editor and set of reviewers (with some exceptions, see detailed discussion below), and the previous reviews and the author response to them may be attached, as is currently done in TACL.<br /> **Submit to a publication venue: Proceed to Step 2 below, submitting the paper, with reviews and meta-reviews attached, to a conference/workshop/journal.<br /> <br /> Notably, in the ideal case, this allows for a decision within a little bit over a month. Based on this, if the authors want to revise their paper, they have a little less than a month to do so before the next deadline for minor revisions, and can spend some more time if they so choose (up to some reasonable time limit, e.g. 9 months, to prevent the article from losing relevance and the old reviews from becoming out-of-date).<br /> <br /> == Details of Step 2 -- Submission to Publication Venue ==<br /> <br /> The steps for Step 2, submission to a publication venue, are as follows:<br /> <br /> *'''Call for Submissions (-2 months or so):''' The publication venue would notify the community that they will be accepting submissions, and that papers that have been reviewed (and satisfy the compliance criteria) can be submitted at this time.<br /> *'''Submission Deadline (0 days):''' Authors will submit reviewed papers to the venue if they wish their paper to be considered for publication there.<br /> *'''Selection Process (2-6 weeks):''' The program chairs, possibly aided by area chairs, will sort through the already-reviewed submissions and build the program for the conference. Similarly to how program chairs do now, they will select the papers to be presented based on a combination of numerical scores, reviews and meta-reviews by the action editor, optional discussion between the PCs and the action editor, and consideration for diversity/direction of the program.<br /> *'''Post-Selection:''' Selected papers will be presented in the conference/workshop/journal. Authors of papers that are not selected can either submit them to the next publication opportunity, or can revise and resubmit the paper in an attempt to improve the reviews.<br /> <br /> == Frequently Asked Questions/Concerns ==<br /> <br /> ===Handling of Blind Review===<br /> <br /> During step 1, the centralized review process, papers will be blind according to the ACL review policy (for simplicity, we are not considering any changes to the blind review policy in this proposal).<br /> <br /> During step 2, consideration for presentation at a publication venue, the process could either be blind or not blind. Currently, in many conferences the authors are not blind to program chairs, and either blind or not blind to area chairs, but this policy could be adjusted appropriately. One advantage of not requiring papers to be blind in step 2 is that this would free the authors to make their papers public after they are satisfied with the results of step 1 (i.e. they have good reviews and are likely to be accepted to a venue of the authors’ choice).<br /> <br /> In addition, the *ACL may ''optionally'' consider establishing a centralized public blind (or after review, de-blinded) repository of papers submitted to the review process. This repository would be opt-in, so authors would be able to decide whether they want their papers to be made public during review. This would have the advantage of allowing authors who want their paper to be made available to do so in a way that still preserves blind review. <br /> <br /> ===Handling of “Areas” and Ensuring Diversity in Scientific Content===<br /> <br /> There are a few concerns regarding how a monolithic reviewing process would make changes to the current system:<br /> <br /> '''Areas:''' In conferences we currently have “areas” and “area chairs”, but in journals such as TACL (as well as other conferences such as ICLR) we just have “action editors” who handle each paper individually. How would this be resolved? Also, what are the selection criteria that program chairs use for selecting papers?<br /> <br /> '''Diversity:''' An *ACL conference still has autonomy to put together its own program. But this <br /> autonomy is greatly reduced because papers can only be drawn from the common <br /> pool, which is produced by a monolithic reviewing system.<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Answer'': For the review process, we may not need “areas”, rather just make sure we assign a competent action editor and set of reviewers, which would be area-independent. In the second step of deciding which papers are presented at a particular conference, then giving the program chairs guidance, but also freedom in their criteria, may be the best way. For example, program chairs can choose to use areas if they wish, but could also choose some other mechanism of ensuring quality and diversity of the scientific program.<br /> <br /> *'''Day-by-day diversity of the papers submitted to the rolling review process:''' The biggest risk here would be that people would choose not to submit papers to the reviewing pool because they think they would not be appreciated. This is probably linked to the perceived quality of the reviews they get, which is linked to the issues below.<br /> *'''Day-by-day capacity to have competent *action editors* handle a diverse set of papers:''' The pool of action editors will be relatively big, and in the current design the action editors will be automatically assigned. As noted above, if the automatically assigned action editor cannot sufficiently handle the paper they can be tasked with finding a new editor, ideally within, but perhaps even outside of the standing action editor pool.<br /> *'''Day-by-day capacity to have competent *reviewers* handle a diverse set of papers:''' Once the action editor is chosen, they will presumably be an expert in the field. They can then use the automated system to find a list of suggested reviewers, and choose them based on their expertise (as well as reviewing load, see below). If there are no reviewers currently within the reviewing pool, they can invite external reviewers to the reviewing pool (possibly suggested by a similar mechanism to the one mentioned above for action editors).<br /> *'''Ability of program chairs to encourage participation of action editors, reviewers, or authors in certain thematic areas:''' Note that the program chairs will always have some discretion with respect to how they build the program of the conference, as they do now. Let's say a conference wants to have a theme session. The simplest way to achieve this is an announcement to the effect of &quot;there will be a theme on XXX at ACL 2022, please submit papers to the reviewing pool on these topics!&quot; If the reviewing pool already has the capacity to review these papers, then nothing needs to be changed. However, if the reviewing pool is lacking in editors or reviewers in these areas, then the above mechanisms could be used to add editors or reviewers accordingly.<br /> <br /> === How to Transition to the System? ===<br /> <br /> Related venues will need to agree to use the system and also transition to using it seamlessly, how do we ensure venues agree to use the system? For major conferences (e.g. ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, EACL, AACL) and potentially also major journals (TACL), there are two potential options: complete adoption and partial adoption. In complete adoption, all submissions would be handled through the two-step rolling review system. In a partial adoption, the venues could run their own review process, but additionally accept submissions from the centralized reviewing pool. Complete adoption would likely be more efficient/fair, but also require a decision from the ACL executive board to switch over to this new system and mandate this of the program chairs. One option would be to do a partial adoption for a few years, then move to a complete adoption.<br /> <br /> For more focused workshops or other non-major conferences in the ACL anthology sometimes the character of venues is very different, and it is necessary to ensure that people still have flexibility and don’t feel constrained. Focused workshops may prefer to partially adopt the system and still have their own reviewing pool, but other workshops may also prefer not to have to handle reviewing themselves, as it is a major burden.<br /> <br /> === Measuring “Acceptance Rate” ===<br /> <br /> There are some organizations that measure the quality of conferences based on the acceptance rate of papers submitted there. This can be important for career advancement, so it is important to have an acceptance rate that appropriately represents the difficulty of publishing a paper in the conference. A few ideas for measuring acceptance rate for a particular venue are below:<br /> <br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Presentation Requests for Conference or Journal:''' This is simple, but may face problems if authors self-select, not requesting a presentation if their reviews are not good. Thus the acceptance rate could seem artificially high, which would make the venues seem less selective than they actually are.<br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Papers in the Review System:''' Another option would be to divide the number of accepted papers by the number of papers in the review system and eligible to make a presentation request at any point. This would give a low acceptance rate, because all papers submitted to ACL-related venues would be in the system making the denominator quite large.<br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Some Fraction of Papers in the Review System:''' We could take a middle-ground strategy between the two. For example, upon submission have authors select a preferred venue (ACL/EMNLP/NAACL), or preferred type of venue (Conference/Journal/Workshop). We could then use the fraction of the papers that selected a particular venue as preferred as an indication of that venue’s popularity, and calculate the denominator based on these statistics. Alternatively, we could use all papers in the system that selected a particular type of venue, e.g. “Conference”, in the denominator when calculating conference acceptance rates (and similarly for journals).<br /> *'''Compare Accepted Paper Scores to Full Submission Pool Scores:''' As another option, we could keep track of the overall distribution of numerical review scores in the system and the distribution for each conference. Then, we calculate an estimation of the review score necessary to be accepted at the conference, and find its percentile in the overall review pool. To take a made-up example, let's say that the median overall review score of papers accepted to ACL was 4.1, then and only 16% of papers in the overall review pool had scores 4.1 or higher. In this case, the acceptance rate for ACL would be reported as 16%. Instead of the median for each publication venue, we could also take the 10th or 20th percentile, representing the lower end of the venue’s accepted range.<br /> <br /> === Other Fundamental Comments/Concerns ===<br /> <br /> *'''How to avoid reviewer burnout?:''' Some people don’t want to be reviewing constantly, all the time, how do we prevent this in a rolling review system?<br /> **''Answer:'' As noted above, we can have a centralized system that keeps track of “review balance” how much reviewing people have done and tries to distribute it equitably. In addition, some people prefer to review many papers at a time as opposed to a few every month. Thus, at the beginning of the monthly reviewing cycle, we could give people a chance to bid on papers that they would like to handle, and if they want to do a lot of reviewing/chairing that month so they don’t have to do much other months, they can bid to take several papers, increasing their review balance so they don’t have to do reviewing in succeeding months. In addition, we may add the ability of reviewers to indicate that they are on vacation or otherwise unavailable.<br /> *'''Would the “revise and resubmit” option favor boring work or lengthen the review process?:''' There are concerns that a “revise and resubmit” option favors more conservative work, particularly if the reviewers are the same through multiple rounds of review. In addition, review can take longer.<br /> **''Answer:'' Regarding lengthening the review process, the authors are given an option to submit their work for presentation as soon as they like, so they can conclude the review process at a point where they choose once they have received initial reviews and the paper has been judged compliant. In addition, the authors can appeal for a different set of reviewers if they feel that their reviews were unfair or of poor quality. A central review process would also allow us to collect statistics and adjust as we learn more about the trends.<br /> *'''Papers being repeatedly rejected by conferences:''' What if in a &quot;pick-from-the-pool&quot; system, program chairs would have more leeway not picking that paper -- after all, they are not rejecting the paper, they are just making it available to other conferences/journals?<br /> **''Answer:'' This is also the case in the current system (often papers are rejected because they're &quot;not ready yet&quot;), but there is some chance that the system proposed here may encourage this further. One potential fix would be to encourage PCs to not pass over highly-rated papers too many times unless there is a really good reason. Because most PCs believe in the values of fairness, this could potentially favor highly-rated papers that have been passed over in the past.<br /> For papers that are not so highly rated, the authors have several choices (analogous to the choices they have in the current system): (a) revise the paper in an attempt to improve the review ratings, (b) lower their standards for where they present their papers, such as submitting to a workshop instead of a conference, (c) if we implement a centralized public repository of under-review or deblinded papers such as the “Findings of the EMNLP” or “ACL Archive”, allow the paper to remain there without being presented at any conference.<br /> <br /> ===Other Logistics Comments/Concerns===<br /> <br /> *'''Retraction:''' There is not currently a mechanism for retracting papers from the ACL anthology, and hence there is no mention of this in the proposal.<br /> **''Answer:'' Having a mechanism for retracting papers is probably important, but somewhat orthogonal to this proposal, and could potentially be decided by the ACL Exec separately.<br /> *'''Publishing Fees:''' TACL is an edited journal, and it costs money for the ACL to publish papers there, which is a concern if we move to something similar in the new system.<br /> **''Answer:'' It is likely that the majority of authors will still want to present their papers in conferences, like our system now, so this may not be an issue. However, if transitioning to a monthly review system causes a large increase in the number of submissions to edited journals, we may have to re-consider. One option would be to make these journals more selective, and have them represent the cream-of-the-crop of *ACL work, which may not be a bad thing.<br /> <br /> === Acknowledgements ===<br /> <br /> This document was drafted by Graham Neubig and revised by the ACL Reviewing Committee: Amanda Stent, Ani Nenkova, Anna Korhonen, Barbara Di Eugenio, Hinrich Schuetze, Iryna Gurevych, Joel Tetreault, Marti Hearst, Matt Gardner, Nitin Madnani, Tim Baldiwn, Trevor Cohn, Yang Liu.<br /> <br /> Thank you to the ACL Executive Committee for additional feedback.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=ACL_Rolling_Review_Proposal&diff=73640 2020-06-19T06:20:55Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>These short-term proposals were adopted by the ACL Exec on June 8 as an initial step to improve<br /> reviewing. As we work towards a more comprehensive reform, we welcome feedback on all the aspects<br /> of our current reviewing system (including the short-term proposals). Feedback from our community will be<br /> valuable in informing further development of the system.<br /> <br /> The ACL reviewing committee has been working on improvements to the reviewing process, has recently introduced short term changes [add link here]. What follows below is a proposal for a more long-term transition to a new system for review in *ACL conferences, where reviewing and acceptance of papers to publication venues is done in a two-step process:<br /> <br /> *'''Step 1 -- Centralized Rolling Review:''' Authors submit papers to a unified review pool with monthly deadlines (similarly to TACL). Review is handled by an action editor, and revision and resubmission of papers is allowed.<br /> <br /> *'''Step 2 -- Submission to Publication Venue:''' When a conference/workshop/journal submission opportunity comes around, authors may submit ''already reviewed'' papers to the conference, workshop, or journal for publication. Program chairs (possibly with the help of senior area chairs) will then accept a subset of submitted papers for presentation.<br /> <br /> These two steps already exist in current reviewing processes: reviewers and ACs write reviews and meta reviews, which then get sent to SACs and program chairs for final acceptance decisions. The main difference in this proposal is that the reviews and meta reviews are done in a centralized, rolling process, which provides numerous benefits, as described below.<br /> <br /> == Potential Advantages/Concerns ==<br /> <br /> Potential positive points of this new system are highlighted in blue, concerns are highlighted in red (many of these are covered in detail in the following sections).<br /> [[File:advantages-and-concerns.png|500px]]<br /> <br /> == Details of Step 1 -- Centralized Review ==<br /> <br /> The centralized review process will consist of submission to a centralized review system that has a large pool of potential “reviewers” (2000-4000). Among these reviewers, some percentage (20%?) who are particularly experienced or senior may also serve as “action editors”, who guide the review process and write meta-reviews for individual papers. There will also be a small number of “editors in chief” who oversee the entire process and handle any special cases (about 10).<br /> <br /> Below is an outline of what the first-pass review process may look like on a step-by-step basis. The number of days is an idealized estimate for when the process goes smoothly, and will need to be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.<br /> <br /> *'''Submission:''' Authors submit a paper to the unified review pool by a fixed deadline (e.g., the first of every month).<br /> *'''Action Editor Assignment (0 days):''' A system automatically assesses the paper content, and automatically assigns an action editor from the pool of senior editors. This assignment is based on several criteria: (a) automatically determined content match between the paper content and the action editors’ past publications, (b) lack of COIs, and (c) any requests for a reduced/increased load entered into the system by the editor, and (d) review balance, where an action editor who has recently handled many papers will have a positive balance and thus not be assigned as often, and vice-versa for negative balance.<br /> *'''Action Editor Confirmation (days 1-4):''' The action editor will confirm their ability to handle the paper and lack of COIs ASAP. In the case they have COIs or are not capable of handling the paper they will be in charge of selecting another serving action editor among several suggestions provided by the automatic system. If they do not feel that any of the action editors suggested by the system are adequately familiar with the topic, they can suggest an external action editor (who has not already reviewed for the reviewing pool), potentially also aided by a system. If there is no action editor in our community who can handle the paper at all, then the paper can be declined as out-of-scope (see “desk-rejects” below) after confirmation of this fact by an editor-in-chief.<br /> *'''Desk Rejects and Reviewer Assignment (days 5-7):''' After the action editor has been confirmed, the action editor will quickly check the paper for any major violations in formatting or other factors and desk reject the paper if it is in violation. The action editor will then be presented with a list of reviewers automatically suggested from the pool by the system based on criteria (a-d) above. The action editor will choose reviewers, using this automatic suggestion as a base. <br /> *'''Review (days 7-30):''' The reviewers conduct the normal review process.<br /> *'''Editor Meta-review and Review Release (days 30-35):''' The action editor will read the reviews, discuss with the reviewers if necessary, and:<br /> **Summarize the review results in a meta-review.<br /> **Perform a compliance check, checking several boxes confirming “the paper satisfies the formatting requirements (e.g. abiding by the page limit),” “the paper is written in comprehensible English (or any language accepted by *ACL publications),” “the paper is compliant with the ACL ethical code,” “the paper is topically within the scope of at least one *ACL venue.” In the very rare case (e.g. 2-4% of submitted papers?) that a paper does not satisfy these minimal criteria, it will not be allowed to proceed to the next step and may face a moratorium on resubmission for a certain period of time.<br /> *'''Next Steps:''' Assuming the paper passes the compliance check, the authors may then either:<br /> **Revise and request another round of review: If the authors are not yet satisfied with their review results, they may revise the paper to reflect reviewer comments, write an author response, and return to the beginning of Step 1. In this case, the paper will usually go to the same action editor and set of reviewers (with some exceptions, see detailed discussion below), and the previous reviews and the author response to them may be attached, as is currently done in TACL.<br /> **Submit to a publication venue: Proceed to Step 2 below, submitting the paper, with reviews and meta-reviews attached, to a conference/workshop/journal.<br /> <br /> Notably, in the ideal case, this allows for a decision within a little bit over a month. Based on this, if the authors want to revise their paper, they have a little less than a month to do so before the next deadline for minor revisions, and can spend some more time if they so choose (up to some reasonable time limit, e.g. 9 months, to prevent the article from losing relevance and the old reviews from becoming out-of-date).<br /> <br /> == Details of Step 2 -- Submission to Publication Venue ==<br /> <br /> The steps for Step 2, submission to a publication venue, are as follows:<br /> <br /> *'''Call for Submissions (-2 months or so):''' The publication venue would notify the community that they will be accepting submissions, and that papers that have been reviewed (and satisfy the compliance criteria) can be submitted at this time.<br /> *'''Submission Deadline (0 days):''' Authors will submit reviewed papers to the venue if they wish their paper to be considered for publication there.<br /> *'''Selection Process (2-6 weeks):''' The program chairs, possibly aided by area chairs, will sort through the already-reviewed submissions and build the program for the conference. Similarly to how program chairs do now, they will select the papers to be presented based on a combination of numerical scores, reviews and meta-reviews by the action editor, optional discussion between the PCs and the action editor, and consideration for diversity/direction of the program.<br /> *'''Post-Selection:''' Selected papers will be presented in the conference/workshop/journal. Authors of papers that are not selected can either submit them to the next publication opportunity, or can revise and resubmit the paper in an attempt to improve the reviews.<br /> <br /> == Frequently Asked Questions/Concerns ==<br /> <br /> ===Handling of Blind Review===<br /> <br /> During step 1, the centralized review process, papers will be blind according to the ACL review policy (for simplicity, we are not considering any changes to the blind review policy in this proposal).<br /> <br /> During step 2, consideration for presentation at a publication venue, the process could either be blind or not blind. Currently, in many conferences the authors are not blind to program chairs, and either blind or not blind to area chairs, but this policy could be adjusted appropriately. One advantage of not requiring papers to be blind in step 2 is that this would free the authors to make their papers public after they are satisfied with the results of step 1 (i.e. they have good reviews and are likely to be accepted to a venue of the authors’ choice).<br /> <br /> In addition, the *ACL may ''optionally'' consider establishing a centralized public blind (or after review, de-blinded) repository of papers submitted to the review process. This repository would be opt-in, so authors would be able to decide whether they want their papers to be made public during review. This would have the advantage of allowing authors who want their paper to be made available to do so in a way that still preserves blind review. <br /> <br /> ===Handling of “Areas” and Ensuring Diversity in Scientific Content===<br /> <br /> There are a few concerns regarding how a monolithic reviewing process would make changes to the current system:<br /> <br /> '''Areas:''' In conferences we currently have “areas” and “area chairs”, but in journals such as TACL (as well as other conferences such as ICLR) we just have “action editors” who handle each paper individually. How would this be resolved? Also, what are the selection criteria that program chairs use for selecting papers?<br /> <br /> '''Diversity:''' An *ACL conference still has autonomy to put together its own program. But this <br /> autonomy is greatly reduced because papers can only be drawn from the common <br /> pool, which is produced by a monolithic reviewing system.<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Answer'': For the review process, we may not need “areas”, rather just make sure we assign a competent action editor and set of reviewers, which would be area-independent. In the second step of deciding which papers are presented at a particular conference, then giving the program chairs guidance, but also freedom in their criteria, may be the best way. For example, program chairs can choose to use areas if they wish, but could also choose some other mechanism of ensuring quality and diversity of the scientific program.<br /> <br /> *'''Day-by-day diversity of the papers submitted to the rolling review process:''' The biggest risk here would be that people would choose not to submit papers to the reviewing pool because they think they would not be appreciated. This is probably linked to the perceived quality of the reviews they get, which is linked to the issues below.<br /> *'''Day-by-day capacity to have competent *action editors* handle a diverse set of papers:''' The pool of action editors will be relatively big, and in the current design the action editors will be automatically assigned. As noted above, if the automatically assigned action editor cannot sufficiently handle the paper they can be tasked with finding a new editor, ideally within, but perhaps even outside of the standing action editor pool.<br /> *'''Day-by-day capacity to have competent *reviewers* handle a diverse set of papers:''' Once the action editor is chosen, they will presumably be an expert in the field. They can then use the automated system to find a list of suggested reviewers, and choose them based on their expertise (as well as reviewing load, see below). If there are no reviewers currently within the reviewing pool, they can invite external reviewers to the reviewing pool (possibly suggested by a similar mechanism to the one mentioned above for action editors).<br /> *'''Ability of program chairs to encourage participation of action editors, reviewers, or authors in certain thematic areas:''' Note that the program chairs will always have some discretion with respect to how they build the program of the conference, as they do now. Let's say a conference wants to have a theme session. The simplest way to achieve this is an announcement to the effect of &quot;there will be a theme on XXX at ACL 2022, please submit papers to the reviewing pool on these topics!&quot; If the reviewing pool already has the capacity to review these papers, then nothing needs to be changed. However, if the reviewing pool is lacking in editors or reviewers in these areas, then the above mechanisms could be used to add editors or reviewers accordingly.<br /> <br /> === How to Transition to the System? ===<br /> <br /> Related venues will need to agree to use the system and also transition to using it seamlessly, how do we ensure venues agree to use the system? For major conferences (e.g. ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, EACL, AACL) and potentially also major journals (TACL), there are two potential options: complete adoption and partial adoption. In complete adoption, all submissions would be handled through the two-step rolling review system. In a partial adoption, the venues could run their own review process, but additionally accept submissions from the centralized reviewing pool. Complete adoption would likely be more efficient/fair, but also require a decision from the ACL executive board to switch over to this new system and mandate this of the program chairs. One option would be to do a partial adoption for a few years, then move to a complete adoption.<br /> <br /> For more focused workshops or other non-major conferences in the ACL anthology sometimes the character of venues is very different, and it is necessary to ensure that people still have flexibility and don’t feel constrained. Focused workshops may prefer to partially adopt the system and still have their own reviewing pool, but other workshops may also prefer not to have to handle reviewing themselves, as it is a major burden.<br /> <br /> === Measuring “Acceptance Rate” ===<br /> <br /> There are some organizations that measure the quality of conferences based on the acceptance rate of papers submitted there. This can be important for career advancement, so it is important to have an acceptance rate that appropriately represents the difficulty of publishing a paper in the conference. A few ideas for measuring acceptance rate for a particular venue are below:<br /> <br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Presentation Requests for Conference or Journal:''' This is simple, but may face problems if authors self-select, not requesting a presentation if their reviews are not good. Thus the acceptance rate could seem artificially high, which would make the venues seem less selective than they actually are.<br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Papers in the Review System:''' Another option would be to divide the number of accepted papers by the number of papers in the review system and eligible to make a presentation request at any point. This would give a low acceptance rate, because all papers submitted to ACL-related venues would be in the system making the denominator quite large.<br /> *'''Accepted Papers / Some Fraction of Papers in the Review System:''' We could take a middle-ground strategy between the two. For example, upon submission have authors select a preferred venue (ACL/EMNLP/NAACL), or preferred type of venue (Conference/Journal/Workshop). We could then use the fraction of the papers that selected a particular venue as preferred as an indication of that venue’s popularity, and calculate the denominator based on these statistics. Alternatively, we could use all papers in the system that selected a particular type of venue, e.g. “Conference”, in the denominator when calculating conference acceptance rates (and similarly for journals).<br /> *'''Compare Accepted Paper Scores to Full Submission Pool Scores:''' As another option, we could keep track of the overall distribution of numerical review scores in the system and the distribution for each conference. Then, we calculate an estimation of the review score necessary to be accepted at the conference, and find its percentile in the overall review pool. To take a made-up example, let's say that the median overall review score of papers accepted to ACL was 4.1, then and only 16% of papers in the overall review pool had scores 4.1 or higher. In this case, the acceptance rate for ACL would be reported as 16%. Instead of the median for each publication venue, we could also take the 10th or 20th percentile, representing the lower end of the venue’s accepted range.<br /> <br /> === Other Fundamental Comments/Concerns ===<br /> <br /> *'''How to avoid reviewer burnout?:''' Some people don’t want to be reviewing constantly, all the time, how do we prevent this in a rolling review system?<br /> **''Answer:'' As noted above, we can have a centralized system that keeps track of “review balance” how much reviewing people have done and tries to distribute it equitably. In addition, some people prefer to review many papers at a time as opposed to a few every month. Thus, at the beginning of the monthly reviewing cycle, we could give people a chance to bid on papers that they would like to handle, and if they want to do a lot of reviewing/chairing that month so they don’t have to do much other months, they can bid to take several papers, increasing their review balance so they don’t have to do reviewing in succeeding months. In addition, we may add the ability of reviewers to indicate that they are on vacation or otherwise unavailable.<br /> *'''Would the “revise and resubmit” option favor boring work or lengthen the review process?:''' There are concerns that a “revise and resubmit” option favors more conservative work, particularly if the reviewers are the same through multiple rounds of review. In addition, review can take longer.<br /> **''Answer:'' Regarding lengthening the review process, the authors are given an option to submit their work for presentation as soon as they like, so they can conclude the review process at a point where they choose once they have received initial reviews and the paper has been judged compliant. In addition, the authors can appeal for a different set of reviewers if they feel that their reviews were unfair or of poor quality. A central review process would also allow us to collect statistics and adjust as we learn more about the trends.<br /> *'''Papers being repeatedly rejected by conferences:''' What if in a &quot;pick-from-the-pool&quot; system, program chairs would have more leeway not picking that paper -- after all, they are not rejecting the paper, they are just making it available to other conferences/journals?<br /> **''Answer:'' This is also the case in the current system (often papers are rejected because they're &quot;not ready yet&quot;), but there is some chance that the system proposed here may encourage this further. One potential fix would be to encourage PCs to not pass over highly-rated papers too many times unless there is a really good reason. Because most PCs believe in the values of fairness, this could potentially favor highly-rated papers that have been passed over in the past.<br /> For papers that are not so highly rated, the authors have several choices (analogous to the choices they have in the current system): (a) revise the paper in an attempt to improve the review ratings, (b) lower their standards for where they present their papers, such as submitting to a workshop instead of a conference, (c) if we implement a centralized public repository of under-review or deblinded papers such as the “Findings of the EMNLP” or “ACL Archive”, allow the paper to remain there without being presented at any conference.<br /> <br /> ===Other Logistics Comments/Concerns===<br /> <br /> *'''Retraction:''' There is not currently a mechanism for retracting papers from the ACL anthology, and hence there is no mention of this in the proposal.<br /> **''Answer:'' Having a mechanism for retracting papers is probably important, but somewhat orthogonal to this proposal, and could potentially be decided by the ACL Exec separately.<br /> *'''Publishing Fees:''' TACL is an edited journal, and it costs money for the ACL to publish papers there, which is a concern if we move to something similar in the new system.<br /> **''Answer:'' It is likely that the majority of authors will still want to present their papers in conferences, like our system now, so this may not be an issue. However, if transitioning to a monthly review system causes a large increase in the number of submissions to edited journals, we may have to re-consider. One option would be to make these journals more selective, and have them represent the cream-of-the-crop of *ACL work, which may not be a bad thing.<br /> <br /> === Acknowledgements ===<br /> <br /> This document was drafted by Graham Neubig and revised by the ACL Reviewing Committee: Amanda Stent, Ani Nenkova, Anna Korhonen, Barbara Di Eugenio, Hinrich Schuetze, Iryna Gurevych, Joel Tetreault, Marti Hearst, Matt Gardner, Nitin Madnani, Tim Baldiwn, Trevor Cohn, Yang Liu.<br /> <br /> Thank you to the ACL Executive Committee for additional feedback.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2020Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=73537 2020-02-26T16:09:21Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>'''ACL2021 report''' by Hinrich Schuetze (ACL2021 coordination chair)<br /> <br /> ACL-IJCNLP 2021 will be held in Bangkok. Dates: August 1-6, 2021.<br /> <br /> GC: Chengqing Zong (Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences)<br /> <br /> PCs: <br /> Fei Xia (UW)<br /> Roberto Navigli (Sapienza Rome)<br /> Maggie Li (Hong Kong Polytechnic)<br /> <br /> LCs: Thepchai Supnithi, The National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC), Thailand;<br /> Thanaruk Theeramunkong, Thammasat University, Thailand<br /> <br /> GC and LCs have started with the first steps: website, finding chairs for the committees etc.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2020Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=73367 2020-01-28T07:47:21Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>'''ACL2021 report''' by Hinrich Schuetze (ACL2021 coordination chair)<br /> <br /> ACL-IJCNLP 2021 will be held in Bangkok. Dates: August 1-6, 2021.<br /> <br /> GC: Chengqing Zong (Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences)<br /> <br /> PCs: We have identified three candidates that are willing to serve and are currently finalizing the details.<br /> <br /> LCs: Thepchai Supnithi, The National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC), Thailand;<br /> Thanaruk Theeramunkong, Thammasat University, Thailand<br /> <br /> When the program committee chairs are selected, we will begin the process of preparing for the conference.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2020Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=73366 2020-01-26T14:50:54Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>'''ACL2021 report''' by Hinrich Schuetze (ACL2021 coordination chair)<br /> <br /> ACL-IJCNLP 2021 will be held in Bangkok (August 1-6, 2021).<br /> <br /> GC: Chengqing Zong (Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences)<br /> <br /> PCs: We have identified three candidates that are willing to serve and are currently finalizing the details.<br /> <br /> LCs: <br /> <br /> When the program committee chairs are selected, we will begin the process of preparing for the conference.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2020Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=73365 2020-01-26T14:50:24Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: Created page with &quot;&#039;&#039;&#039;ACL2021 report&#039;&#039;&#039; by Hinrich Schuetze (ACL2021 coordination chair) ACL-IJCNLP 2021 will be held in Bangkok (August 1-6, 2021). GC: Chengqing Zong (Institute of Automation...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''ACL2021 report''' by Hinrich Schuetze (ACL2021 coordination chair)<br /> <br /> ACL-IJCNLP 2021 will be held in Bangkok (August 1-6, 2021).<br /> <br /> GC: Chengqing Zong (Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences)<br /> <br /> PCs: We have identified three candidates that are willing to serve and are currently finalizing the details.<br /> <br /> LCs: <br /> <br /> When the program committee chairs are selected, we will get begin the process of preparing for the conference.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2019Q3_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=73185 2019-07-22T11:20:12Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>The 2021 coordinating committee received three bids. One bid was deemed less interesting that the other two. The two remaining bids are Bangkok and Yokohama. We will conduct site visits in September (hopefully) and then make a final decision on where to host the 2021 conference.<br /> <br /> '''Actions: <br /> '''<br /> #Sign right-of-first-refusal agreements<br /> #Site visits<br /> #Sign the agreement with winning venue<br /> #Appoint local organization chair(s)<br /> #Set up 2021 conference website (local organization chair, in collaboration with ACL IT)<br /> #Appoint general chair (coordinating committee) <br /> #Appoint program chairs (coordinating committee, in collaboration with general chair) <br /> <br /> Hinrich</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2019Q3_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=73184 2019-07-22T11:19:21Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: Created page with &quot;The 2021 coordinating committee received three bids. One bid was deemed less interesting that the other two. The two remaining bids are Bangkok and Yokohama. We will conduct s...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>The 2021 coordinating committee received three bids. One bid was deemed less interesting that the other two. The two remaining bids are Bangkok and Yokohama. We will conduct site visits in September (hopefully) and then make a final decision on where to host the 2021 conference.<br /> <br /> '''Actions: <br /> '''<br /> #Sign right-of-first-refusal agreements<br /> #Site visits<br /> #Sign the agreement with winning bid<br /> #Apoint local organization chair(s)<br /> #Set up 2021 conference website (local organization chair, in collaboration with ACL IT)<br /> #Appoint general chair (coordinating committee) <br /> #Appoint program chairs (coordinating committee, in collaboration with general chair) <br /> <br /> Hinrich</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2019Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=72761 2019-02-14T09:14:07Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: Created page with &quot;ACL 2021 will be held in Asia, in collaboration with AFNLP. The mailing list acl21cc@aclweb.org has been set up with Hinrich Schuetze as owner. We have received two expressio...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>ACL 2021 will be held in Asia, in collaboration with AFNLP. The mailing list acl21cc@aclweb.org has been set up with Hinrich Schuetze as owner.<br /> <br /> We have received two expressions of interest so far and I am optimistic that we will receive proposals from these two interested parties. <br /> <br /> I am not sure whether we actively need to solicit other proposals at this point.<br /> <br /> If you would like to suggest host cities for ACL 2021 or have other comments, then please edit this document:<br /> <br /> https://www.overleaf.com/project/5c62ca6a42344b0fe74790f3</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conference_Handbook&diff=72651 2018-08-11T09:08:17Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: /* Miscellany */</p> <hr /> <div>''This handbook provides information on how to organize the ACL conference.''<br /> <br /> == Policies and Guidelines ==<br /> <br /> *[[Conference acronym]]<br /> <br /> * '''Policy'''<br /> **[[Policy on registering domain names for conferences]]<br /> **[[Policy on joint conferences]]<br /> **[[ACL Conference Conflict-of-interest policy]]<br /> **[[Double Submission Policy for Conferences]]<br /> **[[Policy on speaker reimbursement]]<br /> <br /> * '''Guideline'''<br /> ** [[ACL Guidelines on Remote Conference Presentation]]<br /> <br /> * '''Schedule'''<br /> **[[Conference planning schedule]]<br /> **[[Typical schedule]]<br /> <br /> * '''ACL Executive Committee'''<br /> **[[Actions and duties of the Exec in overseeing the conference]]<br /> **[[Meetings held by Exec at conferences]]<br /> <br /> * '''Conference Bid'''<br /> **[[Call for conference bids]]<br /> **[[Bid Guidelines]]<br /> <br /> * '''Chairs'''<br /> **[[Selecting a General Chair]]<br /> **[[Selecting a Program Co-Chair]]<br /> **[[Guidelines and policies]]<br /> **[[Chairs and Sub-chairs for Conferences]]<br /> **[https://aclweb.org/aclwiki/Conference_Chairs A list of conference chairs and conference locations]<br /> <br /> * '''Tutorial'''<br /> **[[Tutorial teacher payment policy]]<br /> **[[Tutorial teacher instructions]]<br /> **[[Tutorial notes]]<br /> <br /> * '''Workshops'''<br /> **[[Workshop-proceedings]]<br /> **[[Workshops at Conferences]]<br /> **[[ACL Policy on Workshop Support and Sponsorship]]<br /> **[[Types of ACL Workshops]]<br /> **[[ACL General Policies on Workshops]]<br /> **[[ACL Policies on Conference Workshops]]<br /> **[[ACL Policies on SIG Workshops]]<br /> <br /> * '''Student Sessions &amp; Student Fund'''<br /> **[[%2A%2A%2A_student_session_policies|student session policies]]<br /> **[[Student travel funding]]<br /> **[[Don and Betty Walker International Student Fund (Conference Handbook) | Don and Betty Walker International Student Fund]]<br /> <br /> * '''Repository'''<br /> **[[Overview of repository organization]]<br /> **[[Instructions on how to access the repository]]<br /> <br /> * '''Others'''<br /> **[[Financing exhibits]]<br /> **[[Invited speakers]]<br /> **[[Satellite Events]]<br /> <br /> == Duties of Conference Chairs ==<br /> <br /> *[[General (conference) chair duties]]<br /> *[[Local arrangements chair duties]]<br /> **[[arranging the meeting rooms]]<br /> **[[arranging the poster presentations]]<br /> **[[arranging the accommodations]]<br /> **[[arranging the food]]<br /> **[[arranging the food|arranging the social events]]<br /> **[[arranging local support, registration, etc.]]<br /> **[[webmaster]]<br /> *[[Program chair duties]]<br /> **[http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~jason/advice/how-to-chair-a-conference.html How to be a program chair]<br /> **[[ACL 2017 materials]] (START email templates / Google Spreadsheets)<br /> *[[Publications chair duties]]<br /> *[[Handbook chair duties]]<br /> *[[Publicity chair duties]]<br /> *[[Sponsorship chair duties]]<br /> *[[Student chair duties]]<br /> **[[Useful checklist of things to do (from a past student chair)]]<br /> *[[Faculty advisor duties]]<br /> *[[Tutorial chair duties]]<br /> *[[Workshop chair duties]]<br /> *[[Demo chair duties]]<br /> *[[Webmaster duties]]<br /> *[[Exhibits chair duties]]<br /> <br /> == Post-conference Breakfast ==<br /> <br /> * [[Post-conference Breakfast (ACL2018)]]<br /> <br /> == Supplementary Documents from Chapters &amp; SIGs ==<br /> <br /> *[[Student Volunteer Coordinator Duties (EMNLP-2017)]]<br /> <br /> == Reference Documents == <br /> *[[2017 sponsorship booklet]]<br /> *[[2016 NAACL HLT Program Chairs Report]]<br /> <br /> == Sample Documents ==<br /> <br /> *[[example budgets]]<br /> *[[sample conference paper calls]]<br /> *[[paper style files]]<br /> *[[camera ready instructions]]<br /> *[[tutorial calls for proposals]]<br /> *[[sample letter to panelists]]<br /> *[[student workshop paper call]]<br /> * [[Acl 2004 camera]]<br /> * [[Acl 2005 camera]]<br /> * [[Student workshop paper call]]<br /> * [[Recent ACL calls for workshop proposals]]<br /> * [[Sample workshop calls for papers]]<br /> * [[Workshop-proceedings]]<br /> * [[Sample Calls for Demos &amp; Posters]]<br /> * [[ACL 2007 Call for Demos and Posters]]<br /> * [[ACL-07 Call For Workshop Proposals]]<br /> * [[ACL-10 Workshop Instructions]]<br /> * [[ACL-07 Call for Tutorial Proposals]]<br /> * [[CFP for student session at ACL-07]]<br /> * [[CFP for student session at ACL-05]]<br /> * [[Sample invitation letter]]<br /> <br /> == Miscellany ==<br /> <br /> * [[Handbook old]]<br /> * [[Johanna moore|Johanna Moore document (Guidelines for ACL Program Committee)]]<br /> * [[Software for producing conference schedules from ACLPUB output]]<br /> * [[Best Paper Award Selection - ACL-05]]<br /> * [[Instructions for Authors for Camera-Ready Final Versions of ACL-04 Main Conference Papers]]<br /> * [[Copyright - 2004]]<br /> * [[Policy for ACL conferences held jointly with local Chapters]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Conference Handbook]]</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2018Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=72329 2018-02-27T04:31:22Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>ACL 2021 will be held in Asia, in collaboration with AFNLP. The mailing list acl21cc@aclweb.org has been set up with Hinrich Schuetze as owner and with Shiqi Zhao and Haizhou Li as addressees. <br /> <br /> I propose the following ACL 2021 Coordinating Committee, made up of 5 members of ACL and 4 members of AFNLP:<br /> <br /> AFNLP:<br /> <br /> * Haizhou Li, AFNLP President<br /> * Chengqing Zong, AFNLP Vice President<br /> * Kam-Fai Wong, AFNLP Liaison to ACL<br /> * Yuji Matsumoto, AFNLP Former President<br /> <br /> ACL:<br /> <br /> * Hinrich Schuetze, ACL VP-elect<br /> * Shiqi Zhao, ACL Secretary <br /> * David Yarowsky, ACL Treasurer<br /> * Barbara di Eugenio, ACL Conference Officer<br /> * Priscilla Rasmussen, ACL Business Manager<br /> <br /> The plan is to have the call for bids ready for distribution after this year's ACL conference.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2018Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=72325 2018-02-26T07:27:45Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> <br /> ACL 2021 will be held in Asia, in collaboration with AFNLP. The mailing list acl21cc@aclweb.org has been set up with ??? as owner and with Shiqi and ??? as addressees. <br /> <br /> The ACL 2021 Coordinating Committee, made up of 5 members of ACL and 4 members of AFNLP, has been proposed. <br /> <br /> AFNLP:<br /> <br /> * Haizhou Li, AFNLP President<br /> * Chengqing Zong, AFNLP Vice President<br /> * Kam-Fai Wong, AFNLP Liaison to ACL<br /> * Yuji Matsumoto, AFNLP Former President<br /> <br /> ACL:<br /> <br /> * Hinrich Schuetze, ACL VP-elect<br /> * Shiqi Zhao, ACL Secretary <br /> * David Yarowsky, ACL Treasurer<br /> * Barbara di Eugenio, ACL Conference Officer<br /> * Priscilla Rasmussen, ACL Business Manager<br /> <br /> The plan is to have the call for bids ready for distribution after this year's ACL conference.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2018Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=72316 2018-02-24T14:32:40Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> <br /> ACL 2021 will be held in Asia, in collaboration with AFNLP. The mailing list acl21cc@aclweb.org has been set up with ??? as owner and with Shiqi and ??? as addressees. <br /> <br /> The ACL 2021 Coordinating Committee, made up of 5 members of ACL and 4 members of AFNLP, has been proposed. <br /> <br /> AFNLP:<br /> <br /> * Haizhou Li, AFNLP President<br /> * Chengqing Zong, AFNLP Vice President<br /> * Kam-Fai Wong, AFNLP Liaison to ACL<br /> * Yuji Matsumoto, AFNLP Former President<br /> <br /> ACL:<br /> <br /> * Hinrich Schuetze, ACL VP-elect<br /> * Shiqi Zhao, Baidu, China, ACL Secretary <br /> * David Yarowsky, Johns Hopkins, ACL Treasurer<br /> * Yejin Choi, University of Washington, ACL Conference Officer<br /> * Priscilla Rasmussen, ACL Business Manager<br /> <br /> The plan is to have the call for bids ready for distribution after this year's ACL conference.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2018Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=72315 2018-02-24T14:30:09Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div><br /> <br /> ACL 2021 will be held in Asia, in collaboration with AFNLP. The mailing list acl21cc@aclweb.org has been set up with ??? as owner and with Shiqi and ??? as addressees. <br /> <br /> The ACL 2021 Coordinating Committee, made up of 5 members of ACL and 4 members of AFNLP, has been proposed. <br /> <br /> AFNLP:<br /> <br /> * Haizhou Li (President)<br /> * Chengqing Zong (Vice President)<br /> * Kam-Fai Wong (AFNLP Liaison to ACL)<br /> * Yuji Matsumoto (Former President)<br /> <br /> <br /> ACL:<br /> <br /> * ACL VP-elect<br /> * Shiqi Zhao, Baidu, China, Secretary <br /> * David Yarowsky, Johns Hopkins, Treasurer<br /> * Yejin Choi, University of Washington, USA (conference officer)<br /> * Priscilla Rasmussen, ACL business manager<br /> <br /> The plan is to have the call for bids ready for distribution after this year's ACL conference.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2018Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=72314 2018-02-24T14:25:59Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>AFNLP:<br /> <br /> * Haizhou Li (President)<br /> * Chengqing Zong (Vice President)<br /> * Kam-Fai Wong (AFNLP Liaison to ACL)<br /> * Yuji Matsumoto (Former President)<br /> <br /> <br /> ACL:<br /> <br /> * ACL VP-elect<br /> * secretary<br /> * treasurer<br /> * conference officer<br /> * Priscilla Rasmussen</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2018Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=72269 2018-02-07T06:39:29Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>AFNLP:<br /> <br /> Haizhou Li (President)<br /> Chengqing Zong (Vice President)<br /> Kam-Fai Wong (AFNLP Liaison to ACL)<br /> Yuji Matsumoto (Former President)<br /> <br /> <br /> ACL:<br /> <br /> ACL VP-elect, secretary, treasurer, conference<br /> officer, Priscilla.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2018Q1_Reports:_ACL_2021&diff=72268 2018-02-07T06:33:13Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: Created page with &quot;AFNLP: Haizhou Li (President) Chengqing Zong (Vice President) Kam-Fai Wong (AFNLP Liaison to ACL) Yuji Matsumoto (Former President)&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>AFNLP:<br /> <br /> Haizhou Li (President)<br /> Chengqing Zong (Vice President)<br /> Kam-Fai Wong (AFNLP Liaison to ACL)<br /> Yuji Matsumoto (Former President)</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2013Q3_Reports:_General_Chair&diff=2097 2013-08-04T10:22:38Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>ACL 2013 General Chair Report<br /> <br /> by Hinrich Schuetze<br /> <br /> This is only an overview. Please refer to individual<br /> committee reports for details.<br /> <br /> # 174 long papers and 154 short papers main conference papers<br /> # 16 TACL papers<br /> # CoNLL-2013 colocated<br /> # 7 tutorials<br /> # 15 workshops<br /> # 34 system demonstrations<br /> # 25 Student Research Workshop papers<br /> <br /> Coordination between events<br /> <br /> # ACL 2012 workshops were selected through a joint committee ACL-NAACL-EMNLP<br /> # ACL and NAACL schedules were coordinated<br /> <br /> Sponsorship<br /> <br /> The ACL conference and the ACL organization benefit greatly<br /> from the financial support of our sponsors. We thank the<br /> platinum level sponsor, Baidu; the three gold level<br /> sponsors; the three silver level sponsors; and five bronze<br /> level sponsors. Three other sponsors took advantage of more<br /> creative options to assist us: Facebook sponsored the<br /> Student Volunteers; IBM sponsored the Best Student Paper<br /> Award; and SDL sponsored the conference bags.<br /> <br /> Some questions / issues to be considered by future General Chairs<br /> <br /> I was not aware of the need of coordinating schedules with<br /> CL conferences taking place in the same year. This is probably<br /> the first thing general chair and program chairs should think about.<br /> <br /> We should aim to make ACL conferences more consistent from year to<br /> year. For example, most ACL conferences treat posters and papers<br /> as being of equal value (based on the reasoning that the decision<br /> about presentation format should only be weakly correlated to the quality of<br /> the paper). This also means that there should be only one list of<br /> accepted papers, not differentiated according to presentation format.<br /> My call would be to do this consistently for all ACL conferences.<br /> <br /> We tried to come up with a better approach to mentoring this year.<br /> We learned some valuable lessons, but I'm still not sure how we can<br /> do meaningful mentoring. Meaningful for me means: papers that otherwise<br /> would not have been accepted get accepted because of mentoring. See<br /> the report of the mentoring chair for discussion.<br /> <br /> The poster session is becoming too big. Of the various alternative models that<br /> have been proposed I would favor to have two poster sessions, one replacing<br /> the dinner. I personally really enjoy the poster sessions (and would benefit<br /> less from posters during coffee breaks), so why not have two of them?<br /> <br /> We allowed rejected long papers to be resubmitted as short papers. This increases<br /> the total number of submissions and attendance. I think this is a good thing and<br /> would recommend that future conferences adopt this part of our schedule<br /> (i.e., long paper rejection before short paper submission)<br /> <br /> There were some area chairs this year that served as area chairs for their area<br /> at several conferences. I would like to see a policy that disallows this practice.<br /> There shouldn't be a single person who controls all conference publications in an area in a given year.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2013Q3_Reports:_General_Chair&diff=2092 2013-08-02T09:17:01Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>ACL 2013 General Chair Report<br /> <br /> by Hinrich Schuetze<br /> <br /> This is only an overview. Please refer to individual<br /> committee reports for details.<br /> <br /> # 174 long papers and 154 short papers main conference papers<br /> # 16 TACL papers<br /> # CoNLL-2013 colocated<br /> # 7 tutorials<br /> # 15 workshops<br /> # 34 system demonstrations<br /> # 25 Student Research Workshop papers<br /> <br /> Coordination between events<br /> <br /> # ACL 2012 workshops were selected through a joint committee ACL-NAACL-EMNLP<br /> # ACL and NAACL schedules were coordinated<br /> <br /> Sponsorship<br /> <br /> The ACL conference and the ACL organization benefit greatly<br /> from the financial support of our sponsors. We thank the<br /> platinum level sponsor, Baidu; the three gold level<br /> sponsors; the three silver level sponsors; and five bronze<br /> level sponsors. Three other sponsors took advantage of more<br /> creative options to assist us: Facebook sponsored the<br /> Student Volunteers; IBM sponsored the Best Student Paper<br /> Award; and SDL sponsored the conference bags.<br /> <br /> Some questions / issues to be considered by future General Chairs<br /> <br /> # I was not aware of the need of coordinating schedules with<br /> CL conferences taking place in the same year. This is probably<br /> the first thing general chair and program chairs should think about.<br /> # We should aim to make ACL conferences more consistent from year to<br /> year. For example, most ACL conferences treat posters and papers<br /> as being of equal value (based on the reasoning that the decision<br /> about presentation format should only be weakly correlated to the quality of<br /> the paper). This also means that there should be only one list of<br /> accepted papers, not differentiated according to presentation format.<br /> My call would be to do this consistently for all ACL conferences.<br /> # We tried to come up with a better approach to mentoring this year.<br /> We learned some valuable lessons, but I'm still not sure how we can<br /> do meaningful mentoring. Meaningful for me means: papers that otherwise<br /> would not have been accepted get accepted because of mentoring. See<br /> the report of the mentoring chair for discussion.<br /> # The poster session is becoming too big. Of the various alternative models that<br /> have been proposed I would favor to have two poster sessions, one replacing<br /> the dinner. I personally really enjoy the poster sessions (and would benefit<br /> less from posters during coffee breaks), so why not have two of them?<br /> # We allowed rejected long papers to be resubmitted as short papers. This increases<br /> the total number of submissions and attendance. I think this is a good thing and<br /> would recommend that future conferences adopt this part of our schedule<br /> (i.e., long paper rejection before short paper submission)<br /> # There were some area chairs this year that served as area chairs for their area<br /> at several conferences. I would like to see a policy that disallows this practice.<br /> There shouldn't be a single person who controls all conference publications in an area in a given year.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2013Q3_Reports:_General_Chair&diff=2050 2013-07-23T06:47:12Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>ACL 2013 General Chair Report<br /> <br /> by Hinrich Schuetze<br /> <br /> This is only an overview. Please refer to individual<br /> committee reports for details.<br /> <br /> # 174 long papers and 154 short papers main conference papers<br /> # 16 TACL papers<br /> # CoNLL-2013 colocated<br /> # 7 tutorials<br /> # 15 workshops<br /> # 34 system demonstrations<br /> # 25 Student Research Workshop papers<br /> <br /> Coordination between events<br /> <br /> # ACL 2012 workshops were selected through a joint committee ACL-NAACL-EMNLP<br /> # ACL and NAACL schedules were coordinated<br /> <br /> Sponsorship<br /> <br /> The ACL conference and the ACL organization benefit greatly<br /> from the financial support of our sponsors. We thank the<br /> platinum level sponsor, Baidu; the three gold level<br /> sponsors; the three silver level sponsors; and five bronze<br /> level sponsors. Three other sponsors took advantage of more<br /> creative options to assist us: Facebook sponsored the<br /> Student Volunteers; IBM sponsored the Best Student Paper<br /> Award; and SDL sponsored the conference bags.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2013Q3_Reports:_General_Chair&diff=2049 2013-07-23T06:45:46Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: New page: ACL 2013 General Chair Report by Hinrich Schuetze This is only an overview. Please refer to individual committee reports for details. # 174 long papers and 154 short papers to appear in...</p> <hr /> <div>ACL 2013 General Chair Report<br /> <br /> by Hinrich Schuetze<br /> <br /> This is only an overview. Please refer to individual<br /> committee reports for details.<br /> <br /> # 174 long papers and 154 short papers to appear in the main conference<br /> # 16 TACL papers to be presented at conference<br /> # CoNLL-2013 colocated<br /> # 7 tutorials<br /> # 15 workshops<br /> # 34 system demonstrations<br /> # 25 papers to be presented at Student Research Workshop<br /> <br /> Coordination between events<br /> <br /> # ACL 2012 workshops were selected through a joint committee ACL-NAACL-EMNLP<br /> # ACL and NAACL schedules were coordinated<br /> <br /> Sponsorship<br /> <br /> The ACL conference and the ACL organization benefit greatly<br /> from the financial support of our sponsors. We thank the<br /> platinum level sponsor, Baidu; the three gold level<br /> sponsors; the three silver level sponsors; and five bronze<br /> level sponsors. Three other sponsors took advantage of more<br /> creative options to assist us: Facebook sponsored the<br /> Student Volunteers; IBM sponsored the Best Student Paper<br /> Award; and SDL sponsored the conference bags. We are<br /> grateful for the financial support from these organizations.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2012Q3_Reports:_ACL_2013&diff=1600 2012-06-25T14:49:38Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: /* == */</p> <hr /> <div>http://acl2013.org<br /> <br /> parallel sessions - 4 for now<br /> <br /> auspices - verified<br /> <br /> ========================================<br /> <br /> The following committee chairs have accepted to serve<br /> for ACL 2013.<br /> <br /> Program Co-Chairs<br /> <br /> Pascale Fung, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology<br /> pascale@ee.ust.hk<br /> <br /> Massimo Poesio, University of Essex<br /> poesio@essex.ac.uk<br /> <br /> Local Chair<br /> <br /> Svetla Koeva, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences<br /> &lt;svetla@dcl.bas.bg&gt;<br /> <br /> Workshop Co-Chairs<br /> <br /> Aoife Cahill, Educational Testing Service<br /> acahill@ets.org<br /> <br /> Qun Liu, Chinese Academy of Sciences<br /> liuqun@ict.ac.cn<br /> <br /> Tutorial Co-Chairs<br /> <br /> Johan Bos, University of Groningen<br /> bos@meaningfactory.com<br /> <br /> Keith Hall, Google<br /> &lt;kbhall@google.com&gt;<br /> <br /> Demo Co-Chairs<br /> <br /> Miriam Butt, University of Konstanz<br /> Miriam.Butt@uni-konstanz.de<br /> <br /> Sarmad Hussain, Al-Khawarizmi Institute of Computer Science<br /> sarmad.hussain@kics.edu.pk<br /> <br /> Publication Chairs<br /> <br /> Roberto Navigli, Sapienza University of Rome (Chair)<br /> &lt;navigli@di.uniroma1.it&gt;<br /> <br /> Jing-Shin Chang, National Chi Nan University (Co-Chair)<br /> jshin@csie.ncnu.edu.tw<br /> <br /> Publicity Co-Chairs<br /> <br /> Anisava Miltenova, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences<br /> anmilten@bas.bg<br /> <br /> Ivan Derzhanski, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences<br /> iad58g@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Anna Korhonen, University of Cambridge<br /> anna.korhonen@cl.cam.ac.uk<br /> <br /> ========================================<br /> <br /> The program chairs have put together the following tentative<br /> timeline. There are still a few dates that may change.<br /> <br /> Feb 25th - Long paper submission due<br /> <br /> March 25th - Long paper review due<br /> <br /> March 27th-30th - Author response period<br /> <br /> April 7th - Long paper acceptance notification<br /> <br /> April 14th - Short paper submission due<br /> <br /> April 28th - Long paper camera ready due<br /> <br /> May 5th - Short paper acceptance notification<br /> <br /> May 15th - Short paper camera ready due<br /> <br /> May 15th - Best paper selection<br /> <br /> August 4th - Conference<br /> <br /> ========================================<br /> <br /> The next major todo is to talk with ACL 2012<br /> chairs after the 2012 conference to make sure<br /> we take any lessons learned into account. At <br /> that point I will also nominate people for<br /> a few positions that haven't been filled yet,<br /> including student chairs.</div>

HinrichSchuetze https://www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=2012Q3_Reports:_ACL_2013&diff=1599 2012-06-25T14:48:58Z

<p>HinrichSchuetze: </p> <hr /> <div>http://acl2013.org<br /> <br /> parallel sessions - 4 for now<br /> <br /> auspices - verified<br /> <br /> ========================================<br /> <br /> The following committee chairs have accepted to serve<br /> for ACL 2013.<br /> <br /> Program Co-Chairs<br /> <br /> Pascale Fung, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology<br /> pascale@ee.ust.hk<br /> <br /> Massimo Poesio, University of Essex<br /> poesio@essex.ac.uk<br /> <br /> Local Chair<br /> <br /> Svetla Koeva, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences<br /> &lt;svetla@dcl.bas.bg&gt;<br /> <br /> Workshop Co-Chairs<br /> <br /> Aoife Cahill, Educational Testing Service<br /> acahill@ets.org<br /> <br /> Qun Liu, Chinese Academy of Sciences<br /> liuqun@ict.ac.cn<br /> <br /> Tutorial Co-Chairs<br /> <br /> Johan Bos, University of Groningen<br /> bos@meaningfactory.com<br /> <br /> Keith Hall, Google<br /> &lt;kbhall@google.com&gt;<br /> <br /> Demo Co-Chairs<br /> <br /> Miriam Butt, University of Konstanz<br /> Miriam.Butt@uni-konstanz.de<br /> <br /> Sarmad Hussain, Al-Khawarizmi Institute of Computer Science<br /> sarmad.hussain@kics.edu.pk<br /> <br /> Publication Chairs<br /> <br /> Roberto Navigli, Sapienza University of Rome (Chair)<br /> &lt;navigli@di.uniroma1.it&gt;<br /> <br /> Jing-Shin Chang, National Chi Nan University (Co-Chair)<br /> jshin@csie.ncnu.edu.tw<br /> <br /> Publicity Co-Chairs<br /> <br /> Anisava Miltenova, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences<br /> anmilten@bas.bg<br /> <br /> Ivan Derzhanski, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences<br /> iad58g@gmail.com<br /> <br /> Anna Korhonen, University of Cambridge<br /> anna.korhonen@cl.cam.ac.uk<br /> <br /> ========================================<br /> <br /> The program chairs have put together the following tentative<br /> timeline. There are still a few dates that may change.<br /> <br /> Feb 25th - Long paper submission due<br /> March 25th - Long paper review due<br /> March 27th-30th - Author response period<br /> April 7th - Long paper acceptance notification<br /> April 14th - Short paper submission due<br /> April 28th - Long paper camera ready due<br /> May 5th - Short paper acceptance notification<br /> May 15th - Short paper camera ready due<br /> May 15th - Best paper selection<br /> August 4th - Conference<br /> <br /> ========================================<br /> <br /> The next major todo is to talk with ACL 2012<br /> chairs after the 2012 conference to make sure<br /> we take any lessons learned into account. At <br /> that point I will also nominate people for<br /> a few positions that haven't been filled yet,<br /> including student chairs.</div>

HinrichSchuetze