2017Q3 Reports: TACL Journal Editor - Revision history

LillianLee: /* Checking for dual submissions */ credit ICML

2017-08-01T11:47:40Z

Checking for dual submissions: credit ICML

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:47, 1 August 2017
Line 19:		Line 19:
	=== Checking for dual submissions ===		=== Checking for dual submissions ===

	"Illegal" dual submissions occur, and the (significant) overhead for checking for them each month falls not just on TACL, but also on the program chairs for ACL, EACL, NAACL, EMNLP, and so on for nine months after the conference receives its submissions. It would be excellent if near-duplicate checking could be centralized and automated, perhaps by integrating Regina Barzilay and Min-Yen Kan's ACL 2017 ~~duplicate-detection software~~ into SoftConf? (Informal conversation with the arxiv also suggest that we be granted access to their near-duplicate-detection API.)		"Illegal" dual submissions occur, and the (significant) overhead for checking for them each month falls not just on TACL, but also on the program chairs for ACL, EACL, NAACL, EMNLP, and so on for nine months after the conference receives its submissions. It would be excellent if near-duplicate checking could be centralized and automated, perhaps by integrating the ICML duplicate-detection software that Regina Barzilay and Min-Yen Kan employed for ACL 2017, into SoftConf? (Informal conversation with the arxiv also suggest that we be granted access to their near-duplicate-detection API.)

	=== Is TACL (not) a conference? ===		=== Is TACL (not) a conference? ===

LillianLee: /* Personnel updates */ fixed missing paren

2017-08-01T09:39:07Z

Personnel updates: fixed missing paren

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:39, 1 August 2017
Line 80:		Line 80:
	The following became Action Editors in January 2017: Colin Cherry, Jiangfeng Gao, Julia Hockenmaier, Adam Lopez, Ani Nenkova, Sebastian Pado, and Ivan Titov. Welcome aboard!		The following became Action Editors in January 2017: Colin Cherry, Jiangfeng Gao, Julia Hockenmaier, Adam Lopez, Ani Nenkova, Sebastian Pado, and Ivan Titov. Welcome aboard!

	The following Action Editors have graciously agreed to stay on for an additional term starting July 2017: Hal Daume III, Eric Fosler-Lussier (until EOY 2017 for now Alexander Koller, Anna Korhonen, Marco Kuhlmann,		The following Action Editors have graciously agreed to stay on for an additional term starting July 2017: Hal Daume III, Eric Fosler-Lussier (until EOY 2017) for now Alexander Koller, Anna Korhonen, Marco Kuhlmann,
	Diana McCarthy,		Diana McCarthy,
	Daichi Mochihashi,		Daichi Mochihashi,

LillianLee: /* Personnel updates */ - Eric Fossler-Lussier's acceptance of additional term just came in

2017-07-26T16:55:32Z

Personnel updates: - Eric Fossler-Lussier's acceptance of additional term just came in

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:55, 26 July 2017
Line 80:		Line 80:
	The following became Action Editors in January 2017: Colin Cherry, Jiangfeng Gao, Julia Hockenmaier, Adam Lopez, Ani Nenkova, Sebastian Pado, and Ivan Titov. Welcome aboard!		The following became Action Editors in January 2017: Colin Cherry, Jiangfeng Gao, Julia Hockenmaier, Adam Lopez, Ani Nenkova, Sebastian Pado, and Ivan Titov. Welcome aboard!

	The following Action Editors have graciously agreed to stay on for an additional term starting July 2017: Hal Daume III, Alexander Koller, Anna Korhonen, Marco Kuhlmann,		The following Action Editors have graciously agreed to stay on for an additional term starting July 2017: Hal Daume III, Eric Fosler-Lussier (until EOY 2017 for now Alexander Koller, Anna Korhonen, Marco Kuhlmann,
	Diana McCarthy,		Diana McCarthy,
	Daichi Mochihashi,		Daichi Mochihashi,
Line 93:		Line 93:

	We also need and plan to increase the standing reviewer pool.		We also need and plan to increase the standing reviewer pool.


	== Major bottlenecks, and major proposed changes as solutions ==		== Major bottlenecks, and major proposed changes as solutions ==

LillianLee: modify "(no)preprint during review" idea

2017-07-26T16:42:32Z

modify "(no)preprint during review" idea

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 26 July 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Given this, options the TACL EiCs have been talking about among ourselves and are just about to gather TACL AE thoughts on are as follows. The first suggestion is new, but the options below are not ordered.		Given this, options the TACL EiCs have been talking about among ourselves and are just about to gather TACL AE thoughts on are as follows. The first suggestion is new, but the options below are not ordered.

	# Allow preprints during review, but make the author choice to do or not do so salient, by requiring a suffix to submission and camera-ready paper titles, say, “PADR” or “noPADR”. indicating whether a preprint was available during review. In this way, future readers or citers of the paper would be able to see whether it was accepted as "truly" double-blind or perhaps potentially effectively single-blind. This mechanism may provide some potential alternate advantage (?) or recognition to authors choosing not to make preprints available during review.		# Allow preprints during review, but make the author choice to do or not do so salient, by requiring a suffix to submission and camera-ready paper titles (or to the abstract, or as keywords), say, “PADR” or “noPADR”. indicating whether a preprint was available during review. In this way, future readers or citers of the paper would be able to see whether it was accepted as "truly" double-blind or perhaps potentially effectively single-blind. This mechanism may provide some potential alternate advantage (?) or recognition to authors choosing not to make preprints available during review.
	# Ban the posting of preprints during review		# Ban the posting of preprints during review
	# The status quo		# The status quo

LillianLee: added reviewer completion average for reviewers that complete their reviews

2017-07-26T05:35:55Z

added reviewer completion average for reviewers that complete their reviews

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:35, 26 July 2017
Line 41:		Line 41:

	June and July 2017 actually had 22 and 19 valid submissions, respectively, so the last data points will change as those decisions come in and are included. Also not counted: papers handled using START (the early days of TACL) and the 146 papers archived for some technical or formatting problem.		June and July 2017 actually had 22 and 19 valid submissions, respectively, so the last data points will change as those decisions come in and are included. Also not counted: papers handled using START (the early days of TACL) and the 146 papers archived for some technical or formatting problem.

			For reviewers that complete their reviews, over the past 12 months, the average completion time is 23 days, where the TACL "contract" is 21 days. Many, many thanks to these wonderful reviewers!

	[[File:Time to first decision.no desk rejects.png]]		[[File:Time to first decision.no desk rejects.png]]
Line 47:		Line 49:

	[[File:2017Q3_TACL.Time_to_first_decision.each_paper.by_sub_round.png\|800px]]		[[File:2017Q3_TACL.Time_to_first_decision.each_paper.by_sub_round.png\|800px]]

LillianLee: finished a pass

2017-07-26T04:38:19Z

finished a pass

Show changes

LillianLee: checkpoint: more stats entered

2017-07-26T03:28:18Z

checkpoint: more stats entered

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 We sincerely thank ACL Secretary Shiqi Zhao for granting us an extension on July 2nd for a new reporting deadline of Tuesday July 25th due to circumstances beyond our control. -- the TACL Editors-in-Chief
 == Some statistics ==
-= Some statistics ==
+=== First-decision statistics ===
-=== Number of submissions and timing of first decision ===
+June and July 2017 actually had 22 and 19 valid submissions, respectively, so the last data points will change as those decisions come in and are included.  Also not counted: papers handled using START (the early days of TACL) and the 146 papers archived for some technical or formatting problem.
-June and July 2017 actually had 22 and 19 valid submissions, respectively, so the last data points will change as those decisions come in and are included.  Also not counted: papers handled using START (the early days of TACL), papers, and the 146 papers archived for some technical or formatting problem.
+[[File:Time to first decision.no desk rejects.png]]
-[[File:Time to first decision.no desk rejects.png]]
+We provide a sense of the variance in time to first decision by re-plotting the data above on a per-individual-paper basis, where the x-axis is again the submission round (month) in which the paper was submitted.  45 days (third line from the bottom) would be our ideal. Note that one reason the variance for the last round  is less than other years is because papers that are overdue from the May or June rounds are not yet in the data.

LillianLee: stats revision - exclude desk rejects

2017-07-25T18:00:48Z

stats revision - exclude desk rejects

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:00, 25 July 2017
Line 4:		Line 4:

	== Some statistics ==		== Some statistics ==

			= Some statistics ==

	=== Number of submissions and timing of first decision ===		=== Number of submissions and timing of first decision ===
	Depicted below is the history of the number of distinct submission IDs that have received a decision, and the average time to first decision, grouped by round (=nearest first-of-the-month). The decision time for papers submitted within in a month is counted as starting from the first of the next month.		Depicted below is the history of the number of distinct submission IDs that have received a decision ''excluding desk rejects'' (in contrast to plots from prior reports) in and the average time to first decision, grouped by round (=nearest first-of-the-month). The decision time for papers submitted within in a month is counted as starting from the first of the next month.

	There is a possibility that the rise in decision time during the first part of 2017 was due in part to one of the Editors in Chief being out for that time period, causing significant load on the remaining TACL HQ Officers. We hope that with the restoration of our full EiC roster that the times may drop.

	The drop at the end is due to the fact that what is plotted is decided-upon submissions, whereas ''there were 22 and 19 valid submissions in the June 2017 and July 2017 round''s, respectively; so, the last two months' data will rise in subsequent reports. Also not counted: papers handled using START (the early days of TACL), papers, and the 146 papers archived for some technical or formatting problem.

			June and July 2017 actually had 22 and 19 valid submissions, respectively, so the last data points will change as those decisions come in and are included. Also not counted: papers handled using START (the early days of TACL), papers, and the 146 papers archived for some technical or formatting problem.

	[[File:~~TACL-2017Q3~~ Time to first decision.png]]		[[File:Time to first decision.no desk rejects.png]]

LillianLee: note about 2017 first half

2017-07-25T17:38:32Z

note about 2017 first half

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 25 July 2017
Line 7:		Line 7:
	=== Number of submissions and timing of first decision ===		=== Number of submissions and timing of first decision ===
	Depicted below is the history of the number of distinct submission IDs that have received a decision, and the average time to first decision, grouped by round (=nearest first-of-the-month). The decision time for papers submitted within in a month is counted as starting from the first of the next month.		Depicted below is the history of the number of distinct submission IDs that have received a decision, and the average time to first decision, grouped by round (=nearest first-of-the-month). The decision time for papers submitted within in a month is counted as starting from the first of the next month.

			There is a possibility that the rise in decision time during the first part of 2017 was due in part to one of the Editors in Chief being out for that time period, causing significant load on the remaining TACL HQ Officers. We hope that with the restoration of our full EiC roster that the times may drop.

	The drop at the end is due to the fact that what is plotted is decided-upon submissions, whereas ''there were 22 and 19 valid submissions in the June 2017 and July 2017 round''s, respectively; so, the last two months' data will rise in subsequent reports. Also not counted: papers handled using START (the early days of TACL), papers, and the 146 papers archived for some technical or formatting problem.		The drop at the end is due to the fact that what is plotted is decided-upon submissions, whereas ''there were 22 and 19 valid submissions in the June 2017 and July 2017 round''s, respectively; so, the last two months' data will rise in subsequent reports. Also not counted: papers handled using START (the early days of TACL), papers, and the 146 papers archived for some technical or formatting problem.

LillianLee: fix cap

2017-07-25T17:35:38Z

fix cap

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 25 July 2017
Line 5:		Line 5:
	== Some statistics ==		== Some statistics ==

	=== ~~number~~ of submissions and timing of first decision ===		=== Number of submissions and timing of first decision ===
	Depicted below is the history of the number of distinct submission IDs that have received a decision, and the average time to first decision, grouped by round (=nearest first-of-the-month). The decision time for papers submitted within in a month is counted as starting from the first of the next month.		Depicted below is the history of the number of distinct submission IDs that have received a decision, and the average time to first decision, grouped by round (=nearest first-of-the-month). The decision time for papers submitted within in a month is counted as starting from the first of the next month.